Sentences with phrase «yet other points»

He has yet other points to make that require attention.

And yet others point to growth in online opportunities and the ease with which nearly anyone -LSB-...]

Not exact matches

A quarter - point hike in the US federal funds rate might provide a welcome dose of clarity to Asian markets and emerging markets more generally, but any indication that the path of further increases will be other than short and shallow could yet have a further disruptive effect.

Yet April 30th 2008 was no less critical a turning point in the recession's history than these other dates, for it was then that the FOMC, having cut the Fed's target interest rate to 2 percent, resolved to cut it no further — drawing a line in the sand by which it unwittingly helped seal the fate of the US, and world, economy.

Wednesday's financial results won't be rosy, as print advertising decline swamps all of the other revenue progress Griffin will be able to yet point to.

If you look at Page 3 of C's Y - 9 performance report, you'll see that C's yield on loans is 2 % higher than the large bank peer group, yet the bank has a spread on earning assets half a point lower than other large banks.

At that point bitcoins did not yet have a quantifiable value in other currencies.

On the same point, I know many, many people of faith who do not «force» their views on others, yet instead use their faith as their guiding principle to share love, kindness, and goodness to others.

(If your article is actually about a writer's failings — if the whole point of the piece is to ask how a man could be so perceptive in some ways and yet so moronic in others — then that of course is something else entirely.)

@fimeilleur actually i can back up the claims i make both personally and historically, one example Abraham, Machpelah (actual location of his tomb and remains along with 5 others in Israel right where they are supposed to be) Kedorlaomer king of Elam, (defeated by Abraham and recently discovered) it is said Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.More than that Abraham saw God and spoke with Him, not the god you are on about that men use to justify their evil intent, but the God who has created all things, the God that no one especially you can not contain.Ignorance is your choice but that will not negate the existence of God in any way.No one that i am aware of has all the answers at this point regarding spiritual things, evolution or evilution there are areas God has not yet revealed to mankind but every day more is discovered.I find it amazing that God is big enough to share discovery even with those who would reject Him.

Yet, as Mark points out, we all agree that love, etc. exist — primarily because we have a «shared experience» of them; i.e., we can «explain,» at least in basic terms that others can understand, what those things are.

Yet Noll and George Marsden, among others, have rightly pointed out how activism operates as a fundamental force within evangelical identity.

If your point was to demonstrate that just about any unsubstantiated assertion about the true essence of reality is as good as any other (e.g. any religion as yet developed), then well done!

Yet as others point out here, the discovery of more ancient sources casts light on obscure usage in the originals thus providing for updated scholarship.

To the point, why couldn't God be both watchmaker and controller (i.e. sometimes watchmaker, other times controller and yet others both)?

And yet, we sometimes point out things in each others postings that allow us each to learn.

Granted, the believers are perfectly happy relying on scientists and science to — I don't know — talk to people around the world instantaneously via this comment board, and then get in their cars, and fly in planes, and use electricity, and watch TV — all of those things based on science, and yet, when someone points out that scientists have mapped the human genome and other primates and can show, irrefutably, where the different primate families branched off — well, no, no no!

4) you never said you were an atheist either, and yet you didn't mind arguing the point as one (whether devil's advocate or not) until i pointed out that you had not read others who shared that same basic presupposition.

We have been taught to pray in the way which you have pointed out, yet never once considering the other side has been praying the same way.

the belief on the existence of the devil was concieved by theologians of the past thousands of years, there was no other way of explaining the bad experiences of people in the past because we were not educated yet to the kind of what we have now, Why this happened because that was part of the learning process that God wants us to know, in pathrotheism, we are part of God, and He himself is evolving because He is the universe, We are now the conscious part of Him, our destiny in accordance to his will also be His destiny because it is His will.Although He prepared first all the material reality of the universe ahead of us, The experiences for us humans including the supernatural is just part of nirmal process for learning because its natural process, today we reach a point of not believing the practices of the past, but it does not mean its wrong, Just like a child, adults loved to tell mythical stories to them, because we knew children enjoys it as part of their learning process.

And yet, as others were quick to point out, no one doubts the love of men for men, or women for women, just as no one doubts that there may be abiding relations of love between brothers and sisters, or grandparents and grandchildren.

But on the other hand, when in talking about sin one talks only of such sins, it is so easily forgotten that in a way it may be all right, humanly speaking, with respect to all such things up to a certain point, and yet the whole life may be sin, the well - known kind of sin: glittering vices, willfulness, which either spiritlessly or impudently continues to be or wills to be unaware in what an infinitely deeper sense a human self is morally under obligation to God with respect to every most secret wish and thought, with respect to quickness in comprehending and readiness to follow every hint of God as to what His will is for this self.

At yet at other points, God's household seems to be the entire human race.

Yet argument over those points has clouded other scriptural claims about Mary.

Most of us are politely quiet and secretly roll our eyes when someone says that god speaks to them or that they have been touched by god etc., yet when someone mentions any of the other things we are quick to point out that they are wackos... perhaps it is time for us to speak up and say there is no such thing as god and it is time to clear our heads and get on with moving the human species forward and leaving fairy tales and silly beliefs behind.

Yet others are champions of globalization who seem to believe that the unstoppable economic dynamics of Wall Street and Silicon Valley have brought us to the point that we really don't need a foreign policy.

Yet, as we have already pointed out, there is good evidence for concluding that they are not only not narrated to us directly by eye - witnesses, but that, in addition, they are not even independent of each other.

They all seem to agree and would have no problem / issue with the extra attention to the turban with respect to security issues but none of them can agree with it because there is no rationale to back up why the turban is being pointed out yet no other article of clothing is.

Yet at certain other points he did definitely lift the position of women to a considerably higher level than that current in Arabia before his own time.

Yet I believe his metaphysics allows for this understanding and that his cosmology, not only with respect to the problem now at hand — the locus of the soul — but at other points as well, is more intelligible if we affirm this principle.

Third, look for the transition points, the moments in the telling of it that will be marked by «And yet», «However», «But», «On the other hand», «Beyond this», «And», «Therefore».

yet, where the christian extremists are anywhere near as bad at this point as the muslim extremists, but it looks like it is coming from what I can see from all of the extremist hate - filled posts by a lot of people posting on this and any other article about muslims.

Yet these points and others that might be mentioned are at most minor failings in a remarkable achievement.

Yet as we look at each of the Five Points in more detail in subsequent posts, we will make room for other Calvinistic voices to be heard as well, and as we look at the biblical passages they use to defend their theology, we will see that Calvinism may not be as reasonable or biblical as it first appears.

Hans - Georg Gadamer, a philosopher whose thought resonates profoundly with Burke's, points out that tradition is something that one belongs to and yet is «other» than oneself: «Self - understanding always occurs through understanding something other than the self.»

Something tells me he was more concerned with other things, yet today it seems like many people make it the focal point of their entire belief system.

Yet, at the same time she did it while respecting and even trying to understand the other points the religious members had.

Yet, as the evangelists point out, the other aspect of the identification is equally important: the Christ of faith can not be separated from the historical Jesus, if we do not wish to find «a myth in the place of history, a heavenly being in the place of the Nazarene».

Whether or nor particular quanta considered in this kind of an explanation are capable of further analysis, or yet other sorts of forces (and quanta) are subsequently discovered, is not, after all, the most significant point.

It points the utterly confusing and paradoxical nature of believing that Jesus magically makes some precepts in the bible not required to be followed yet others essential!

The funny thing is that Christians will undoubtedly point this out as a straw man (albeit likely in other terms), yet they'll continue to hold onto beliefs that are every bit as ridiculous or more.

Immensely true, yet I've been hearing people like Held Evans and other «church» leaders / voices (as well as mine) pointing things like this out for years now.

You can't prove difinitively using scientific method where life came from and yet you (not necessarily YOU, but others on this blog who support your argument) call me arrogant or moronic because I point to a creator, which I can not prove scientifically either.

Yet the followers of this novel continue to point fingers at the other.

And yet an unflagging trust in the divine promise of social fulfillment is, even from the point of view of «practicality,» the only attitude that can adequately respond to our «impossible» dilemma of utopian naivete on the one hand or cynicism on the other.

You have therefore reinforced my point, and yet again have failed to understand the correspondence from others in this thread.

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responsyet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responsYet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

While others are listening to words of political wisdom from the mouths of golden orators, the little blacks silently and successfully approach from the four points of the compass, and set to work upon the scraps of good food which yet remain.

It's the toughest season yet though, and we can see other clubs not exactly running away with it, with three points behind a team we thrashed 3 — 0, I'm quite confident after the next few games we can be top.

Now he's weighed in on the situation at Force India, which hit a new low in the Belgian Grand Prix when Sergio Perez and Esteban Ocon made contact with each other twice, costing the team valuable points yet again.