Sentences with phrase «not claims of faith»

Because these claims are NOT claims of faith.

Not exact matches

Jed Shugerman, a Fordham law professor, told Business Insider in an email that Republicans» claims in the aftermath of the Comey hearing were «not good - faith arguments» based on the testimony.

«Is it crazy to imagine a day when the Abrahamic faiths renounce not only their specific claims to specialness, but even the claim to specialness of the whole?»

On most if not all of these issues, Dionne stands exactly where Podesta stands — preferring his politics to the contrary teaching of the faith he claims to love and profess.

To claim to «know» there is no God, and yet still not knowing so much of what there is to know about the universe, is just taking something you want to believe on faith.

There is ample evidence for the existence of God, what you decide to do with this evidence is ultimately up to you, but do not claim that there is none... and I would submit to you that many people believe many things without evidence every single day... but do not lump all people of faith into one basket... I have personal proof that God exists, but proof for me may not be proof for you, some people can see something with their own eyes and still deny it, that is why I said it is ultimately up to you to decide what you believe... there is much evidence both for and against the existence of God, you need to decide which evidence you choose to believe...

I appreciate it may be difficult to reconcile your religious faith with the available evidence, but despite the claims of fundamentalists, one doesn't need to abandon their religious faith in accepting what the physical evidence indicates.

Second: The Creation tale is simply a way for early humans to explain mans creation and «fall» from God's predetermined path... The old testament is full of stuff more related to philosophy and health advice then «Gods word» However, this revelation has not made me less of a christian... In Contrast to those stuck in «the old ways» regarding faith (not believing in neanderthals and championing the claim that earth is only 6000 years old), I believe God created the universe on the very principle of physics and evolution (and other sciencey stuff)... Thus the first clash of atoms was the first step in the billionyear long recipe in creating the universe, the galaxies, the stars, the planets, life itself and us.

Although he often expressed this vision obliquely, he was relentless in his criticism of those who despised faith as an anachronism: «I am not afraid to say that a devout and God - fearing man is superior as a human specimen to a restless mocker who is glad to style himself an «intellectual,» proud of his cleverness in using ideas which he claims as his own though he acquired them in a pawnshop in exchange for simplicity of heart....

Then there's a local preacher, Matt Jamison, who insists that what happened couldn't be the Rapture because it claimed flawed humans of all faiths and ethnicities.

What really makes my head hurt trying to understand is when people claim to be of a faith or to be a Christian and have absolutely no clue as to the idea that they're supposed to actually believe and uphold the teachings of CHRIST and not their own religion ideas and call it «close enough».

YOU said dismissal of what NOW you are saying I'm NOT doing, was a «faith claim» So, you changed the goal - post already?

If Warfield is not concerned with Catholicism, then why in his discussion of the kind of «faith healing» promoted by men like A. J. Gordon does he claim that it creates a class of «professionals» who stand between the soul and God and that «from this germ the whole sacerdotal evil has grown»?

Fortunately for us, the argument ought not to be about our personal validity, but to the objective claims we make about the truths of scripture and the essential elements that genuine Christian faith has and does contribute to society.

Proof, something that not one religion has you take your religion on faith, and that doesn't fly in this world, try telling a bank to give you a loan of faith, try convicting someone of a crime based on faith, try claiming ownership over something on faith.

Contrary to the plati - tudes abhorred by Lamott and put forth often by people who claim to be Christian, putting faith in God does not mean letting go, it means grabbing on to the truth of God, trusting fully in Him, and acting responsively to His love which endures for us despite our undeserving nature.

The result of my reflections was not a surrender of my claim to the rationality of faith but a revision of its form.

If a person claims a faith in God, but does not display that faith in all of his life, then he is a lier as he stands before God and Man and proclaims he is a believer.

And though some claim that the «gift» which Paul refers to in Ephesians 2:8 - 9 is faith, the Greek word «that» («that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God) is neuter and the Greek word for «faith» is feminine, which means the gift of God is not faith, but rather the entire «salvation package» which originated with God (i.e, «by grace you have been saved»).

But Abraham speaks over the head of the rich man, over the heads of the Pharisees, in what sounds like a direct address to us church types who claim faith in a certain Galilean raised from the dead, «If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.»

All those claiming the schools and the church was wrong, listen he taught theological courses at a theological school, which by definition means that you have to be a person of faith (not to mention that these are not theological schools at state or public universities but denominational theological schools) and to pastor or counsel a church you again by definition have to be a person of faith.

It was not meant to be a proposal for an all - encompassing theory for making religious truth claims but, rather, an intramural Christian conversation about secondary matters of faith.

Furthermore, being that many different conflicting faiths claim success in sobriety we see that it is faith itself, not the validity of those beliefs, that seem to work for people.

Like the religious objectors, scientists wishing to separate faith and reason — a minority, but a noisy one — claim that nature, which they often think of as self - subsistent rather than as created, can not be reconciled to God, whose existence they often deny.

That wasn't the case, however, for another part of Stark's theory — his claim that males who shun faith and worship services do so because they get a kick out of risking hellfire and damnation, or at least the loss of a heavenly afterlife.

We who proclaim Christ ought to have enough faith that our Lord is what we claim him to be, to permit such men and women to have, if not full then some limited, participation in Christian life in the community of faith; for we are confident, or we should be confident if we really believe what we say about Jesus, that such fellowship with him in the company of his people will lead them more and more deeply into the true significance of his person.

American society has still not adequately addressed the issue of domestic violence and abuse to protect persons from harm under church membership, as we saw with the Texas judge that beat his daughter, claiming that it was a part of his faith to discipline her in this manner; 4.

But grocery stores aren't para-church ministries that claim to have ties to a faith that believes in the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Also, if he claims for statements about Jesus» ultimate significance a self - evidence or demonstration in no way dependent upon participation in the community of faith, he would not intend his statements to be theological in the sense of my definition.

All such religious claims not only attempt to solidify and freeze the life and movement of the divine process, but they foreclose the possibility of the enlargement and evolution of faith, and ruthlessly set the believer against the presence of Christ in an increasingly profane history, thereby alienating the Christian from the actuality of his own time.

Indeed, the punch line of Montesino's oration claims precisely this: «You can be sure that in your state you are no more able to be saved than the Moors or Turks, who lack and don't even want the faith of Jesus Christ.»

John I don't know any atheists who believe in ghosts, leprechauns, Nostradamus, faith healings, astrology, or any other irrational beliefs, but I do know plenty of Christians who do believe in such things, so I can't say that we're as prone to irrational belief as you claim.

Finally, if one goes by texts and not anecdotes, the UCC Constitution and Statement of Faith represent who we really claim corporately to be, not to mention the seven recent volumes of The Living Theological Heritage of the United Church of Christ, tracing our lineage from the ancient creeds forward.

Finally, you might take what I call the Way of Aporia, that is, insist that there is a tension between some claims of faith and reason, that the two can not be separated, but that nevertheless there is not enough reason to give up beliefs on either end.

Many faiths are thick; that is, having the faith means not only loving and trusting in God but also believing a complex and rich set of historical, theological, philosophical, and moral claims.

There exists, therefore, and must exist, a teaching of the Church which possesses an importance and binding force for the faith and moral conscience of the individual Catholic, although in what it directly states it can not and does not intend to make any claim to the absolute assent of faith, and although it is not irreformable but is still involved in the elucidatory development of the Church's consciousness of its belief.

Terrorists or dictatorships who persecute innocent people because they claim it's part of faith are not welcomed — their use of Islam as a scapegoat, does not make Islam what they portray it to be, in fact those false persecutors will be punished themselves by God, «God is the only judge.

Although the formulation of the question was not always precise, the everyday experience of black suffering, arising from black people's encounter with the sociopolitical structures controlled by whites, created in my consciousness a radical conflict between the claims of faith on the one hand and the reality of the world on the other.

Titled «Trust in Crisis» - the report also claims faith communities are key to bringing about cohesion and are not the driver of division.

Money & Chooch, did you read the article??? This very article gives examples of how Pres Obama, claiming he is a christian, is mocking the faith — as it is obvious that he is not.

Panthrotheism does not discriminate or believe the bible is wrong, in analogy no one can claim that our human ancestors are wrong because they were naked or ate raw meats.We have now to accept that we are evolving.What is important that we survive.and still love each other in general despite conflicts.No one is wrong in believing and practicing any religion that is pro life.Some people thinks that any contadiction to classical faith is wrong, un aware that humans survive the trials in history was because of change and adaptation, in short evolution.its not anti religiom

i have not «faith» that there is not god, but i have reasoned that there is no evidence to support the religious claims of men.

Similarly, if — like Jonah — we claim to worship and fear God, but do not do what God says, then although we may believe many right and good things about God, and though we may have faith that rivals that of Abraham, our faith is useless and pointless.

The denomination to which he belongs, the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC), is not in communion with most other Orthodox, who it claims have strayed from the true faith via the evils of «ecumenism.»

After all, if the critics want to argue that the Gospels are a hoax, why could it not also be possible that some first century critic of Christianity would try to undermine this fledgling faith by producing a random set of bones and claiming they were the bones of Jesus?

When I reflect on the infinite pains to which the human mind and heart will go in order to protect itself from the full impact of reality, when I recall the mordant analyses of religious belief which stem from the works of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and, furthermore, recognize the truth of so much of what these critics of religion have had to say, when I engage in a philosophical critique of the language of theology and am constrained to admit that it is a continual attempt to say what can not properly be said and am thereby led to wonder whether its claim to cognition can possibly be valid — when I ask these questions of myself and others like them (as I can not help asking and, what is more, feel obliged to ask), is not the conclusion forced upon me that my faith is a delusion?

You can not claim to be a scientist and a person of faith in the same sentence.

There are also those who claim the same faith but pick and choose what tenets of that faith they want to believe and follow and they are the «unorthodox» (Not adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith) or «liberal» (Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian views).

Fourth, it can not be assumed that Christian faith is the only or even the primary factor affecting the attitudes and behavior of those who claim Christian identity.

When believers speak of «truth» and «proof» and «faith», it is not unfair to respond to their claims with skepticism.