Sentences with phrase «written as an argument»

The report, from 2012, did not claim that those people voted illegally in an election, as it was written as an argument for modernizing the US voting system.

The chapter gets written as an argument, based on the working notes, but often in quite a different order, to make it easier for the reader.

Not exact matches

In his letter, Dimon defended Mexico as well as NAFTA and even refuted some of the President's arguments regarding illegal immigration into the U.S. «Mexico is a long - standing peaceful neighbor, and it is wholly in our country's interest that Mexico be a prosperous nation,» Dimon wrote, noting that J.P. Morgan has business in Mexico worth $ 400 million in sales.

«The US government acted as police force (identifying the foreign government's crime), prosecutor (making the legal arguments), jury (ruling on the evidence), and judge (sentencing the foreigner to US retaliatory punishment),» Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the pro-free trade Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in a memo about Section 301's history earlier in August.

Even among her Fed peers, she stands out as a nerd: «As Fed officials deliberated last April about how long to keep interest rates low, Ms. Yellen delivered a 20 - page speech, with 18 footnotes and 15 charts, making the argument that rates should stay low until 2015 or later,» writes WSJ Fed correspondent Jon Hilsenratas a nerd: «As Fed officials deliberated last April about how long to keep interest rates low, Ms. Yellen delivered a 20 - page speech, with 18 footnotes and 15 charts, making the argument that rates should stay low until 2015 or later,» writes WSJ Fed correspondent Jon HilsenratAs Fed officials deliberated last April about how long to keep interest rates low, Ms. Yellen delivered a 20 - page speech, with 18 footnotes and 15 charts, making the argument that rates should stay low until 2015 or later,» writes WSJ Fed correspondent Jon Hilsenrath.

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.&raquAs 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.&raquas bright and eloquent as his peers and a stout defender of the Second Amendment.&raquas his peers and a stout defender of the Second Amendment.»

Levi writes that as a justification for enhancing domestic and North American oil production, «the underlying argument is weak.

Saskatchewan's fight against Justin Trudeau's carbon tax rests on the same argument as B.C.'s opposition to the Trans Mountain project, Chantal Hébert writes.

You might want to re-read what Ted M. initially posted, and then your responses... to me at least... what you wrote was not an isomorphic argument that in any way refuted Ted's, and i think - Ace made reference to that as well as - Ted.

And pretentious and frankly childish comments such as the one so ineloquently written by Brad really are counter to your argument, however futile it ultimately is.

Accordingly, as J. Bottum puts it («Christians and Postmoderns,» FT, February 1994), «postmodernity is still in the line of modernity, as rebellion against rebellion is still rebellion, as an attack on the constraints of grammar must still be written in grammatical sentences, as a skeptical argument against the structures of rationality must still be put rationally.»

As James O'Donnell has written, «Memory has the power to supplant «reality,» or at least what mortals know of reality: indeed, the whole argument of this half of Book X is that it is through memory that, after the fall, we encounter a more authentic reality.»

Jennifer Wright Knust's book is research and argument thin, akin to what an embittered co-ed would have written as a senior thesis to graduate from her religious studies department.

She uses as bases of her arguments the philosophies of «early Christians,» which I feel bears no weight as they were not the prophets who understood and wrote the holy scripture.

The present essay is written in two tracks: the central argument, which appears as the text, and the Scholarly discussion, especially as regards issues pertinent to the Annecy meeting, which appears as the endnotes.

Then, to claim that the bible wrote that too as evidence for your argument?

Werner Jaeger, who has written the classic history of the idea of paideia, [2] pointed out in a later book on Early Christianity and Greek Paideia that Clement not only uses literary forms and types of argument calculated to sway people formed by paideia but, beyond that, he explicitly praises paideia in such a way as to make it clear that his entire epistle is to be taken «as an act of Christian education.»

As I wrote a theological argument for gay marriage https://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/on-the-sinfulness-of-homsexuality-von-der-sundigkeit-der-homosexualitat-deutschunten/ I received some comments which... well weren't really driven by love.

As a seminary professor and author of careful, nuanced theological arguments (such as the classic Knowing God), he lacked the tract - writing flair of his peer StotAs a seminary professor and author of careful, nuanced theological arguments (such as the classic Knowing God), he lacked the tract - writing flair of his peer Stotas the classic Knowing God), he lacked the tract - writing flair of his peer Stott.

But the argument that Professor Smolin attributes to Arkes is nowhere in the book; and what Arkes does argue for never appears in Prof. Smolin's review — in fact, Smolin writes as if he is oblivious to it.

In a pair of articles written some years ago («The Holy Trinity as a Community of Divine Persons,» Heythrop Journal 15 [1974], 166 -82,257-70), I endorsed the argument of the medieval theologian, Richard of Saint Victor, to the effect that two persons in love with one another need a third person whom they mutually love, precisely in order to achieve the fullness of love for one another.

As I was reading these chapters, the thought flow, argument structure, and illustrations were almost identical to what I had written on this blog in 2013.

Indeed, Arkes recognizes as much elsewhere in his argument, for he writes with approval: «During the First Congress, James Madison remarked that the natural right of human beings to be governed only with their consent was an «absolute truth.»

Here's my latest list — this seems like a good spot to set this down, as nobody's posting much on this thread... ---- bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to post that wonderful argument: Many, if not most are buried within other words, but I am not shooting for the perfect list, so use your imagination and add any words I have missed as a comment (no one has done this yet)-- I found some but forgot to write them down.

Well, FAITH, there's the problem... that gibberish in the bible was just made up by «some guy» to keep the peasants behaving in a manner that whomever wrote it thought was a good way to behave... some of those guys were wise, yes, and there are benefits to following some of the «guidelines» set forth in the Bible... but it's a circular argument to use the Bible as a reason to have faith, because you have to first BELIEVE in the deity, THEN believe that the deity inspired the writings, THEN you can take the writings as «truth»... I'm two steps back, not believing in the deity at all (Yay, Atheists!

You speak on what is «True Doctrine», could we also point to something such as the Consti; tution and the daily court room arguments of lawyers and clerks who feel that they alone know and understand the true meaning of the what the framers when they wrote the laws of this land?

As Clarke writes, «such opaque «logic» is characteristic of much typological argument.»

You may be able to make an argument that Paul and some of the other disciples wrote to some of the early churches as a collective, but even these writings focused on individual responsibilty.

Many of us who have written about Rawls» argument have noted that the people behind his famous «veil of ignorance» are a peculiar kind of people (i.e., people very much like John Rawls) and therefore can hardly serve as the normative deliberators producing universal moral principles.

Lewis warned readers of the hazards of relying on intellect — particularly apologetics — over spirituality, writing, «That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality — from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself.

«Although the book was written against her now dead half - sister,» continues Gonzalez, «Elizabeth resented much of what it said, for its arguments based on anti-feminine prejudice could just as easily apply to her.

Growing out of a series of books and essays Kekes has written over the last several years - on the nature of moral argument, the problem of evil, and the conflictual goods and evils that make up life as we know it - Against Liberalism marks the author's most explicit broadside against liberal theory to date.

Regardless, most of my argument is based on the context and historical situation Malachi was writing to, as well as the cultural context of the sacrificial system.

One reason that «the question of universal death grows stale,» Robert Scheer has written, is that the arguments are couched in «terms that pointedly mute just what it is these bombs will do, which is, to start with, to kill the people one loves and nearly everyone else as well.»

In The Logic of Perfection, as part of his argument against determinism, Hartshorne writes that «plural freedom can not be ordered (no matter by whom) save approximately and statistically» (LP 189).

There are other arguments for the Bible as Divine revelation, such as fulfilled prophecy, and the Bible being written over thousands of years by dozens of authors, and not containing contradictions, and numerous other arguments.

The Israelites wrote as ancient people, and their argument for why Yahweh is above all the others gods (see, for example, Psalm 95) only worked because of the shared mythic categories between Israel and her neighbors.»

If the people who wrote the bible had any idea how our solar system worked when they wrote it, then you might have an argument (a very weak one), but as they clearly didn't have a clue, all of your baseless assertions hold no weight.

As for his argument, Carter writes learnedly about the most notable crises of American republicanism, especially the Constitutional period, the Civil War, and the New Deal.

Topher wrote,» Here's my argument, take it or (as most of you will) leave it.

Raison's Filter Fiber © (joking about the copyright)-- bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to post that wonderful argument: Many, if not most are buried within other words, but I am not shooting for the perfect list, so use your imagination and add any words I have missed as a comment (no one has done this yet)-- I found some but forgot to write them down.

As Princeton philosopher of religion Jeffrey Stout has written, «There is no method for good argument and conversation save being conversant — that is, being well versed on one's own tradition and on speaking terms with others»

There was much writing and re-writing of the Instructions for the visitations, and Luther had to mediate when theological argument broke out between Agricola and Melancthon as to whether repentance came before faith, or vice versa.

I write as a historian who finds Gregory's arguments persuasive, but I think Radner's review provides us with a teaching moment.

But, on the whole, Luther took the argument into the enemy country and deliberately repeated the words to which exception had been taken, reinforcing them: «Therefore, as I wrote then so I write now: Let no one have mercy on the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants who refuse to listen to reason; but let everyone, as he is able, strike, hew, stab, and kill, as though among mad dogs, so that by so doing he may show mercy to those who are ruined, put to flight and led astray by these peasants, so that peace and safety may be maintained.»

But when I began writing about gender equality in evangelicalism, it became apparent to me that no matter how careful my tone, no matter how reasoned my arguments, no matter how gentle my critique, my work would inevitably be characterized as «divisive.»

And while some discrepancies should perhaps be expected in descriptions of very unusual events that were written down in the form we have them some fifty years after these events, this can hardly serve as an argument for their accuracy.

As for the date of the document, its references to the temple cult as continuing to exist (9:6 - 10, 25; 10:1, etc.) and its failure to mention the destruction of the temple — a point which would surely be relevant to its argument — indicate that it was not written after AAs for the date of the document, its references to the temple cult as continuing to exist (9:6 - 10, 25; 10:1, etc.) and its failure to mention the destruction of the temple — a point which would surely be relevant to its argument — indicate that it was not written after Aas continuing to exist (9:6 - 10, 25; 10:1, etc.) and its failure to mention the destruction of the temple — a point which would surely be relevant to its argument — indicate that it was not written after AD.

However, in spring 2005, when Raymond Bradley, an atheist in Editorial Board for The Open Society journal, wrote an open letter to Flew accusing him of not «check [ing] the veracity of [Schroeder's] claims before swallowing them whole,» Flew strongly responded to that charge in a letter published in the same journal in summer 2006, describing the content of Bradley's letter «extraordinary offensive» and the accusation made by him as an «egregiously offensive charge»; he also implied that Bradley was a «secularist bigot,» and suggested that he should follow Socrates's advice (as scripted in Plato's Republic) of «follow [ing] the argument wherever it leads.»

(2) On the other hand, the notion that there was a single written source to be designated as Q is also untenable, first because of the argument just advanced, and second because sometimes the resemblances are very close and at other times they are rather remote.