Then children can make an informed decision on whether, and to what extent, they want to
accept a religion as they get older.
Not exact matches
They want everyone to
accept their agenda
as their new
religion.
A number of the major
religions have even
accepted this
as you're not actually worshiping Buddha, just following his examples and teachings
as to how to be a better person in life.
Unless world - wide Islam leeaders don't appologise to the world and the shut down their extremists internally America will never
accept this
religion and its followers
as peace loving.
Maybe not quite similar, because the
religion you
accept does depend on some arbitrary factors out of our control, such
as the country of our birth.
Circular religious logic will still never fully justify the fact that
religion asks for special rights and protections, which it gets, and then turns those rights and protections on other groups
as a defense mechanism for when they are accused of discriminating... i.e. «We can choose who we
accept and who we don't because of our beliefs... wait, what... how can you say you will not
accept our religious organization, that's religious discrimination!»
I haven't given up on them entirely: some of them will migrate toward
religion as they
accept some of life's responsibilities and meet some of life's challenges.
One thing abt the major
religions is that they make U
accept a ridiculously impossible thing
as the center of one's faith like the nailing to a cross a human body & not having it tear away.
Some
religions accept evolution
as true and assume that god left it to run it course, with some» direction» of course.
If you can't
accept what humanity is you can make up another story
as many
religions have, but it will be just that... a story.
That is, if Wilson's purely functionalist explanation of
religion were to become widely
accepted by religious people, it would then be rendered false» for the adaptive features of
religions depend, on Wilson's account, upon religious people thinking it false that their
religions are best understood
as adaptive social organisms.
Neither public schools nor liberals hate any god, they have just
accepted that
as there are many peopleon this planet, so to are there many
religions.
That doesn't make the theology more believable to discerning people, but it does provide evidence for the innocuousness of the faith which causes the greater society to
accept it
as a «mainstream
religion».
The second is where most «atheists» can be found... unwilling to
accept the logical consequence of their utterly meanigless lives
as atheists, they cite humanity
as being self - transcendent, in the end, this becomes a
religion with themselves
as its god — think Nietzsche.
But, if you find an answer not deemed «correct» by your
religion, and
accept it
as the truth, then won't you probably find yourself outside of that faith?
Until this is
accepted, the Abrahamic
religions are going to have an increasingly difficult time,
as fewer an fewer people will
accept arbitrary rules based on irrational principles.
Islam has reached the bottom of cesspool, new generation would never
accept Islam
as a
religion, but terrorist organization.
Furthermore, if the Christian teachings regarding salvation and necessity of
accepting Jesus
as your Savior is so critical, why have the vast majority of the worlds
religions not contained that doctrine?
Today, the
religions of Christendom display a similar disrespect for the truth of the Bible, by giving preference to scientific theories, such
as the Catholic church
accepting evolution.
It appears that all is going
as planned...
accept all the worlds
religions as truth and denounce the one source that reveals me
as what I am... i will see you soon.
«Theology of
religions» is the generally
accepted term for how we
as Christians articulate our faith in the light of the religious plurality of the world.
As can be seen through comparative
religion, no human philosopher or religious leader has ever invented the idea that God fully and freely
accepts human beings without any effort or work on their part.
But to preclude the imposition of a priori evolutionary categories on the nature of religious belief, let us
accept the definition of
religion as given by the historians and sociologists of
religion.
«First we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone
as a rule of faith and
religion, without mixing it with any other things which might be devised by the opinion of men apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to
accept for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by the same Word without addition to diminution, according to the command of our Lord.»
So, I guess
religion is harmful in a sense
as well
as providing a sense of tranquility (which is beneficial) to those who are unable to
accept and deal with reality.
«If an atheist has belief or faith in anything, it's that believers of
religion accept propositions
as evidence, and possibility
as fact.»
@God hates
religion, since Jesus promises that whatever we ask for, if we have faith we shall receive, I am afraid no person of faith should be willing to
accept «No»
as an answer from God.
Wall off a piece of land and build a room with a thatched roof...» (Malfoozat Vol 2, p. 42) «Jamaat» is a form of jihad (today's word is Terrorism) against all other
religions not following Islam or
accepting Islam
as the only true
religion.
I'm glad to see you are honest about it ROCKWOOD, but I think this comment — «The Muslim influx is a bit more difficult for me to
accept, but I often pray that I have the ability to
accept them
as much
as I
accept other
religions, or concpets of relgions such
as Atheism, and Agnosticism..»
The Muslim influx is a bit more difficult for me to
accept, but I often pray that I have the ability to
accept them
as much
as I
accept other
religions, or concpets of relgions such
as Atheism, and Agnosticism..
We are forever putting conditions and qualifications on the love of God: «If you rid yourself of your racism, if you vote Democratic, if you
accept Jesus
as your savior, if...» Such conditional, achievement - oriented, self - made - men
religion certainly doesn't need Jesus dying on the cross and rising from the dead to make itself plausible and reasonable in an achievement - oriented, you - get - what - you - deserve capitalistic culture.
science is not everything, the problem is when the critical and objective philosophy of science is
accepted as absolute in reality.God is beyond logic at this point of our consciousness, The process of gods will manfistation is evolution which
accepts all variables in the process, the input could be not what scienctists wants.Thats why faith or
religion is part of reality.
If your a black, white, Asian, Arab, African, gay, a man, a woman, or whatever your
religion is you need to
accept life
as it comes at you and deal with it!!!
However, in living their lives according to universal values they also
accept the value that says that all
religions and their «gods» are
as valid.
Not only would a demonstration of the inconsistency of divine relativity make Hartshorne's thesis of divine relativity and all that depends on it incoherent and also make Whitehead's famous portrait of God
as the fellow sufferer who understands inadmissible, but philosophers of
religion would have to
accept a different picture of the world.
[1] The state was committed to the destruction of
religion, [2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, hara ssed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted «scientific atheism»
as the truth that society should
accept.
[1] The state was committed to the destruction of
religion, [2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted «scientific atheism»
as the truth that society should
accept.
Many scientists are certainly skeptical of many of the finer points of evolution, but
as a whole, the evolutionary process is
accepted as fact amongst any and all biologists that put science ahead of
religion.
If any other minority (color /
religion), has
accepted Obama's treatment by the foul - mouthed, extreme right,
as an example of what to expect, then I doubt whether, many would have the courage, to emulate him.
When something can be created out of nothing I will
accept the
religion of Atheism
as being true.
In general, children
accept the
religion of their parents without question, and then continue to practice it
as adults.
However,
religion in general just disgusts me, and I can not
accept any of it
as a whole truth.
The Muslim people have embraced a way of life and a belief that says... we want to live our lives according to the belief in freedom of rights... the way of self - rule... the way of America, which also
accepts peoples» worship of «one's faith of choice
as their
religion».
I do believe that faith comes from your heart and you don't need to be educated about
religion to
accept Jesus
as your savior.
I have studied most all
religions, to an extent, and although I can not
accept any of them, I'm sure I could do
as well
as I did on this quiz — 100 percent correct!
It is
as if there is almost three tiers of
religion M. Scott Peck speaks about this in some of his writings, the bottom tier are those who blindly
accept, the middle level is composed of those who came to reject the things they
accepted blindly, and the final tier of enlightenment is those who have gone through all the hard questions,
accepting nothing blindly, yet eventually find God.
As Collins and Miller illustrate, there are those who accept a divine supernatural realm and methodological naturalism (as opposed to metaphysical naturalism); but because religion is introduced long before science education, your «brainwashing... only ways» statement and your subsequent tu quoque are both fault
As Collins and Miller illustrate, there are those who
accept a divine supernatural realm and methodological naturalism (
as opposed to metaphysical naturalism); but because religion is introduced long before science education, your «brainwashing... only ways» statement and your subsequent tu quoque are both fault
as opposed to metaphysical naturalism); but because
religion is introduced long before science education, your «brainwashing... only ways» statement and your subsequent tu quoque are both faulty.
Additionally, Baha'is who regard Islam
as a revealed
religion have a keen interest in reducing Islamophobia in the west
as our own beliefs are not valid if Islam is not from God, and do not
accept donations from non-Baha «is, thus are clearly not «funded» for anti-Islamic purposes.
Again you don't go to church to be
accepted and get
religion you go because you have
accepted christ
as your saviour.
Azariah who later became Bishop of Dornakal argued that the church in
accepting the position of a communal political minority with special protection would become a static community and it would negate its self - understanding
as standing for mission and service to the whole national community, that in any case the Indian church is not a single social or cultural community since it consists of people of diverse background, each of whom would have its own political struggle to wage in cooperation with the people of similar background in other
religions; and therefore theologically and politically Christians should ask only for religious freedom for its mission and service to all people, not
as a minority right, but
as a human right (ref.