Sentences with phrase «about religious truth»

In 1971 Greene wrote, «With the approach of death I care less and less about religious truth.

The hope and dream of every church school leader should be that his learners will push on beyond knowledge about religious truth to the pulsating reality of religious experience, and that many, as the years pass, will catch a vision of the depth dimension of the inner life — spiritual wisdom.

We have been arguing about religious truth, about God and alternative explanations of the universe.

«We had some great arguments about religious truths and beliefs.

Not exact matches

It was only AFTER we discovered real truths about the world around us that the lies and untruths of religious belief revealed themselves.

The truth about religious lives is not so simple.

To their credit, the American Catholic bishops, exercising their apostolic ministry, often boldly defend unpopular truths — about religious freedom, about the sanctity of life, and about the nature of marriage.

Their action, he said, was clearly conscientious, clearly sincere, clearly motivated by religious belief (about the truth of which the government must not judge), and not willful.

How about you stop listening to what your lying religious leaders tell you is the truth and go learn the actual truth.

Ultimately, much of this is a result of the modern «competitive» paradigm of religious communities: being right, having the truth, drawing people into the light from the dark, etc. all becomes about feeling good about ones own membership and being part of those who are «right».

I have far more confidence in the ability of this system to find the truth about the universe than I do the religious one.

The truth about our Creator, Jehovah God, was not infiltrated with religious lies at that time.

(8) Evolutionary discussion often betrays a positivistic bias which sees scientific truth as the «real» truth about things, with other forms of truth, including religious truth, relegated to providing only an emotive, valuational and relativistic set of preferences about things.

They often imply positions about the truth value of religious and secular claims about reality.

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.

It is therefore quite significant that a recent article by Bultmann seems to be by implication a defence of Ksemarm's position against an initial criticism by the Barthian Hermann Diem: Diem had maintained that when all is said and done Käsemann has presented Jesus as only proclaiming «general religious and moral truths» about «the freedom of the children of God», rather than a message in continuity with the Church's kerygma.

With all their laudable effort to understand the integrity of the Scriptures, both Old and New, and to insist on the basic unity of the Bible; with all their recognition of the place of Jesus within the setting of Jewish piety and religious thought, these scholars sometimes fail to see that the very truth about God which the Bible as a whole affirms, and above all that which the New Testament says about Jesus himself, can be smothered by sheer biblicism and thereby made meaningless for those to whom the gospel should be a living, vitalizing, and contemporary message.

As religious people who understand the importance of faith and the truth about marriage, our job will be to broaden the desire for strong loyalties.

«From a vantage point further in the future, I think that ah honest diagnosis will tell the truth about the pivotal role the Religious Right has played in these depressing statistics.

In contrast, Caldecott states in the first line of his preface: «The book is about Tolkien's spirituality, by which I mean his religious awareness and experience, the things he believed about life and death and ultimate truth» (p xi).

For years I struggled with doubts about my faith, and through the emerging church movement, I found people who were asking the very same questions - about religious pluralism, the Problem of Evil, inerrancy, the notion of absolute truth, etc..

The reasoning goes something like this; the truth is written in the bible and we know this because it is written in the bible, of course you could say the same thing about any other religious tome.

And too religious people who can't stand the fact that the real truth is coming out.it hurts them that their European dagon miter fish hat wearing Pope is not comfortable in telling the truth about the real HEBREW ISREALITE

what about rewriting, interpreting, rewording, influencing... RAPING a religious over hundreds and hundreds of years just to mold it into that which suits your personal needs, goals and agendas and call it truth?

The word «God» is irrelevant to the religious problem unless the word is used to refer to whatever in truth operates to save man from evil and to the greater good no matter how much this operating reality may differ from all traditional ideas about it (MUC 12).

That distinction is a half - truth at best, and it misses two important points: the widespread reading of such books not only tells us something important about the overall religious temper of our times; it may also give us a clue to one possible theological expression of the future.

The first is that religious communities can help their members talk about the truth.

As the middle ground between traditional religious morality and secular hedonism continues to shrink in America today, college students like Cox's are realizing that they must make a choice about whether truth matters.

Certainly, one whose religious experience is lacking does well to inquire whether one knows enough as yet of God's truth about spiritual life, just as one who knows that truth sufficiently does well to take note of how God confirms it in experience.

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

Jews believe in a Messiah, but don't believe it was Jesus (though the passover ceremony is all about Christ); Muslims go back to Abraham but since the prophet Mohammad don't have any recent connection to God; Catholics came from a combination of the Roman and Christian church after the death of Christ's apostles; Protestant's see misunderstandings in the Catholic church and have tried in various forms over the years to correct them without any true religious authority; Mormons believe God restored the truths of the original Christian church back on earth through modern prophets and revelation.

Agnosticism — the view that the truth of certain claims — especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims — are unknowable.

All you've done is make «stupid» comments because you didn't like the truth being told about just how «stupid» it is going to sound for an atheist to counsel someone regarding religious belief, when the atheist is as religious in his beliefs as everyone else, with the exception that the atheist's beliefs end in contradiction and self - refutation, which are hardly going to help anyone.

The Crusades and the wars around the Reformation were about things religious, but they were not about witnessing to the truth.

But it isn't really going to be relevant in discussions about the truth of religious claims.

well just thinking about these wars in the muslim / mid-east world over religious differences (which may reflect mental states in many ways) in a world where most realize that living in the present moment is best way to happiness and being in the moment in non-strife and awareness through the teachings of masters such as found in the buddhist, taoist, zen, etc., etc., etc. spriritually based practices of religious like thought and teachings, etc. that to ask these scientifically educated populace whom have access to vast amounts of knowledges and understandings on the internet, etc. to believe in past beliefs that perhaps gave basis and inspiration to that which followed — but is not the end all of all times or knowledges — and is thus — non self - sustaining in a belief that does not encompass growth of knowledge and understanding of all truths and being as it is or could be — is to not respect the intelligence and minds and personage of even themselves — not to be disrespected nor disrespectful in any way — only to point out that perhaps too much is asked to put others into the cloak of blind faith and adherance to the past that disregards the realities of the present and the potential of the future... so you try to live in the past — and destroy your present and your future — where is the intelligence in that — and why do people continually fear monger or allow to be fear — mongered into this destructive vision of the future based upon the past?

They evidently believe that religious people in the marketplace don't deserve protections, and that non-religious people and secular institutions who believe the truth about marriage as the union of husband and wife somehow aren't deserving of protections.

This truth about God could also be integrated with the thinking of the social gospel and the findings of the students of religious experience.

There is the jab about evolution where when creationism is mentioned it is cast in a negative «not truth» light with the exception of a minority that hang onto such antiquated religious thoughts That is not what the const - itution intended.

John Paul II's approach to east central Europe was based on different premises: that the post-war division of Europe was immoral and historically artificial; that communist violations of basic human rights had to be named for what they were; and that the «captive nations» could eventually find tools of resistance that communism could not match, if they reclaimed the religious, moral, and cultural truth about themselves and lived those truths without fear.

The givenness of the barrier between time now and time then yields for us banalities about anachronism, on the one side, and imposes upon us the requirement of mediating between historical fact and religious truth, on the other.

Moreover, the spiritual but not religious reflect the «me» generation of self - obsessed, truth - is - whatever - you - feel - it - to - be thinking, where big, historic, demanding institutions that have expectations about behavior, attitudes and observance and rules are jettisoned yet nothing positive is put in replacement.

The future directed view, by contrast, is that revelation about God and religious truth is a continuing thing and, in fact, a lot more of it is ahead of us than is behind us.

The recognition of other beliefs (other religions as well as other beliefs in our religion), the desire to understand, the hope to explain to another, the wish to know the truth, and the attempt to unify all of one's beliefs into a coherent whole are motivations for reasoning about religious beliefs.

Which brings to mind the question of: Paul talked about having been sent a delusion that we believe a lie and be damned and the question is what if it is the religious and traditional that have seen the truth and changed the truth of God into a lie and have bought into that lie?

Within the great Christian tradition, revelation does not primarily suggest the disclosure of a set of truths — be they ethical or religious or philosophical — that give information to men about their actual behavior or their ideal behavior, or even about the nature of the universe and the meaning which it may possess.

In the world of Charlie Hebdo, sadly, all religious convictions (indeed all serious convictions about moral truth) are, by definition, fanaticism — and thus susceptible to the mockery of the «enlightened.»

Can Christians plausibly continue to affirm the revelatory supremacy of the Christ - event and at the same time be fully open to other traditions that have their own unique convictions about religious meaning and truth?

The secular response is understandable: journalists need stories; it's not so much that they don't care about the truth, but that they really aren't necessarily equipped in a story about the Church, especially if they're not in any way religious, to recognise it when it's staring them in the face.

Whereas the «seven days» of creation communicates to us a particular truth about correct religious observance, rather as the Greek myth of Narcissus warns against the vice of vanity, Genesis 1 - 3 does deal with actual, primordial events.