Sentences with phrase «what other authority»

What other authority can there be for a historic religion than its original title deed?

Not exact matches

But what if we could tap into this incredible, latent processing power to unconsciously cue others to our authority and connect meaningfully with an audience?

Cogan said Shulse plans to argue that the other three defendants in the Black Elk scheme hid their fraud and that he went to authorities immediately upon learning what happened.

Moon Express spent about a year working with the F.A.A., the State Department and other agencies to jerry - rig what Dr. Richards called a «temporary patch,» using the F.A.A.'s existing authority to review rocket payloads in order to gain the approval Moon Express was seeking.

The new lawsuit, with six other states joining Texas, did not directly seek to challenge what those other judges had done (Judge Hanen would have no authority to overturn those orders because they deal with the shutdown of DACA not its original form).

Preston: [00:17:56] So what's so interesting here is that on one side we have Silicon Valley working at a rapid pace to create this new digital cryptocurrency and we also have governments and global authorities looking into the implications of using the similar technology whether it's the IMF or other central banks around the world that are that are talking about using some form of crypto to back their monetary baseline.

President Dudley compared and contrasted the mistakes made by the Japanese and U.S. monetary authorities and what they had been able to learn from each other.

A rare exception is their current alliance to secure Congressional passage of what is known as «fast track authority» for the President to create, with eleven other countries including Canada, the Trans - Pacific Partnership («TPP»).

But a few weeks later the governor of the Saudi Arabia Monetary Authority, Muhammad al Jasser, insisted to news reporters in Kuwait that Saudi Arabia had not purchased the gold cited in the June reports but rather had that extra gold all along in what he called «other accounts» — that is, in accounts not reported officially, just as the true status of China's gold accounts was not reported officially for six years, if the true status is being reported even now.

In other words the «lapse» is what departments have the authority to spend but don't.

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

What kind of love is it that wants to put some aspect of authority or scrupulous appearance ahead of the real welfare of others?

If a church can not tell its flock «what to do with my body,» as the saying goes, with regard to contraception, then other uses of that body will quickly prove to be similarly off - limits to ecclesiastical authority.

Do you have the right to tell others what they can and can not do with their bodies, and why do you think you have this authority?

The horrors perpetrated on «witches» or others who dared to cross the church were done in the name of the «lord» they knew what they were doing and felt god gave them that authority to kill.

Far from merely discriminating between what is religious and what is not, the Blaine Amendments discriminate against Catholic and other ecclesiastical authority and thereby carry out theologically liberal animosities.

Case in point, it is not logical to suggest there is «good» vs «bad» if there is no ultimate moral authority, no higher power that created everything, including free will and the ability to choose whether to heed that drive to do what is «good» vs doing what you want to do at the expense of «good» and of other people.

But now I say unto you, report those who disagree with you to the church or denominational authorities, label them heretics or say that they raise «red flags» and let everyone know not to listen to them, criticize their positions without ever going to them personally to find out what they actually believe and are teaching, align them with other «heretics» without ever researching their books, writings, and messages, and above all, side with your friends against them even if you personally have never been hurt or offended by them.

Whenever hierarchy, infighting, traditions of men, power and authority enter the picture, you can be sure that what you are looking at is something other than the Body of Christ.

It will not accept solely on the basis of authority but will search for what it finds convincing and persuasive; it will not, however, be fantasy or mere play but will assume that there is something to find out and that if some imagined possibilities fail, others may succeed.

What was meant by the signs of the times is not clear, beyond the general implication that any person who observed and understood what was going on about him would not need any other sign from heaven to attest the divine mission and authority of JeWhat was meant by the signs of the times is not clear, beyond the general implication that any person who observed and understood what was going on about him would not need any other sign from heaven to attest the divine mission and authority of Jewhat was going on about him would not need any other sign from heaven to attest the divine mission and authority of Jesus,

Many other saintly authorities could be quoted, but one hopes that this helps to reassure those who, in the current climate of tension, have been made nervous and perhaps over cautious about what truly belongs to the orthodox tradition of the Church.

You appeal to biblical authority, which you can not substantiate, and so now you want to declare the standard is what «others have found it to mean».

You can not point to any one and say this is the right one (with any authority other than «what you want to believe») Every religious text I've ever read is clearly written via the various perceptions of man, not some divine being.

There is a correlation, but what I don't know for sure is how strong the causal link is in amongst all the other things which may go into making up what we would call «authority».

The context of Genesis 1:26 - 27 gives us the best clues as to what is meant by «image» and it probably refers to the things that set us apart from animals — our intellect, emotions, will, authority to rule over creation, desire for relationships, and other non-physical attributes and characteristics.

I love free speech but, those in positions of authority who advocate hate, bigotry and acts of violence against others should be held criminally accountable for what they say.

What they care about is the excuse religion gives them to control other people, assume un-earned power and authority and make money.

if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist if you think the indifferent support your side, you might be an atheist if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheist.

Because anyone who voices certainties as a Christian in directly personal terms runs the risk of being misheard, as if to be saying: «Believe this, or do that, because it is what I believe and do, and my own experience has proven that it is right;» in other words, «take it from me, as if I were your God and your authority.»

They have all bought into the lie that we were somehow given authority to condemn others for what we decide are their sins.

Implicit faith, that is, the acceptance of the authority of others to determine what one believed, was not enough.

On the other hand, to allow government the authority to decide what adults may see and hear represents a greater threat to the welfare of the society than to allow expressions that may be objectionable to many.

On the other hand, to allow government the authority to decide what

We can talk all day about its authority, yet its other qualities — its life, wit, anger, passion, questions, answers — are what really amaze me, I will never get to the bottom of it.

That was the dilemma after praying and seeking the Lord he shows me a couple of things one is God calls the shots not satan satans demons bow to Gods authority and must get his permission so they beg Jesus to send the demons into the pigs.Jesus allows it so we can see satans purpose is always to destroy life.God is still the same yesterday today and forever he is the giver of life.We do know that the pigs were owned by the gentile nations and may well have been offered or about to be offered to there gods which would mean they would belong to satan.Like the example Jesus said about taxes should he pay them and he said give to caesar what is caesars.Or the other option was that it showed Gods mercy to the man that had been healed by delivering him of the demons and he was also protecting the people in the area from the influence of the demons.So God is still the same he is unchangeable and definitely not bipolar.I would say if anyone was bipolar in this situation it is David and he like us struggled with the same choice to walk according to the flesh or walk according to the spirit of God.brentnz

so we can all stop judging eachother and start encouraging others starting with our own family, the word does say that you and your household will be saved, but thats to much like work its easier to play christian around your church you belong to and play follow the leader and go around telling people that God loves them tell them all about how they are sinners you know the bit, an thats it go home and freak out on your famliy members because their not save like you maybe they are and you cant even tell because they do nt measure up to your churches standards even though God says we have all fallen short and that our rightousness is filthy rags, we need to stop useing the word of God as though we think we know what were doing, do you really think that when God said I will give you all authority He ment you?

@Nancy, the truth you speak of is only what your pastor, priest, or whichever other male figure of authority in your sect tells you what it is.

I might be ecelectic, but what makes me consistent is my belief is something that combines the belief of Scripture with that of Englightenment philosophy: nurturing life is goodness, simply, and helping others to see a model that thinking for ourselves can help heal the world of all past injustices - so that we all learn to WANT to be good... within reason and by our own choice...: you have a society like that, you'll have less injustices, less violence, less money - grubbing by people who hold themselves as representatives of «authority» -(which side are you on, by the way, if you see the world as so divided in such a bipolar reality...?)

Where we and others of greater authority than ourselves in the Church, differ from his view lies in the assessment of exactly what is defined and what is not.

2) You can maintain your position from a faith perspective, and say this, but then I'd have to seriously question [a] your historical integrity (for example, the historical position of Revelations as canon, although more of a debate than the other texts, was still NOWHERE NEAR contestable enough for you to draw this sort of conclusion) and [b] your philosophical integrity (for example, if you dismiss Revelations because it doesn't support your position, i'm going to ask: by what authority do you think you have the right to discern this?

So in what sense can we continue to proclaim the special authority of Christian revelation while at the same time fully embracing the implications of our two axioms: on the one hand that our religious language, including our Christological categories, is never adequately representative of God, and on the other that it is always conditioned by historical relativity?

Other kinds of authority progressive liberals very much favor, like the authority of the government to interfere with what consenting adults do in the privacy of the marketplace.

What conservatives and libertarians are most animated about nowadays is the abuse of public - good authority, particularly as such authority has been misused for a very long time to tax and spend, not generally on public goods like defense but on wealth - transfer programs, such as social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other entitlements — the kinds of programs, in other words, that have effectively bankrupted Greece, are threatening to bankrupt several other European nations, and are undermining the European Monetary Union.

Best Point (nominated by Micah Odor): John Wilson at The Wall Street Journal with «No One Reads the Bible Literally» «What is at stake in these disputes is not a choice between following biblical authority on the one hand or science on the other, as the matter is often misleadingly framed.

The other point is Yeah that you have no knowledge of what you are talking about you are a echo of all the supposed authorities and you are not sure since you do nothing but quote and do no research to prove what they are saying is true.

It was, in other words, reform through re-form: reform through a recovery of the «form» given to the Church by Christ himself, who had distinguished sharply between what was owed to Caesar and what was owed to God (Matthew 22.21), thus giving the world the novel idea that religious and political authority were different.

The most important question I get from people about what our family is doing has to do with how I submit myself to other spiritual authority.

If, moreover, we try to go beyond our own experience, we ascertain what others believe the authority of the Christian faith to be.

If, on the other hand, the controlling principle of national life is doing what is right, then the nation is no longer autonomous and self - sufficient; its policies are determined and judged by reference to the superior authority of what is right.