Sentences with phrase «accept those views which»

Well asking a Christian college to accept a view which is directly contrary to it's most basic foundational premise, a belief which literally denies the very core of their faith, might be a bit more than simply stretching their theological imagination.

In seeking a solution to the problem of divine violence in the Old Testament, I was quite hesitant to accept any view which called into question the traditional understandings of the inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture.

Not exact matches

The Localist parties also steer independent of the pro-establishment and pan-democracy camps, but unlike the Centrist parties — which accept negotiations with Beijing — the Localists view the policies of the Chinese central government as an encroachment on Hong Kong's autonomy.

Giving three extra seats on the board to the CEO was certainly founder friendly; that the expansion happened at the same time Uber accepted a $ 3.5 billion investment from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which came with a board seat, suggests Benchmark viewed the board expansion as a way to protect its own interests and influence as well.

Most Monevator readers are probably already willing to accept the following points, which in my view will massively improve your returns over time:

Largely I would echo what Christine has already said about the way in which we feel accepted within our community, but if you'll bear with me for a little bit, I'd like to attempt to explain to Trey in particular what I see as the difference between this type of acceptance and the attitude of the many Christians who view homosexuality as sinful such as what you have encountered with your sister.

But the Catholic church, which accepted the geocentric theory, rejected Galileo's views as heretical and forced him to recant.

For the faithful in Christ can not accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teach about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own» -LCB- Humani Generis 37).

The conflict must continue until the secular and religious groups arrive at a compromise which accepts the best in both points of view, but this will require a sustained effort to liberalize the popular concept of Islam.

This can be done from many points of view, but I have suggested above that the crucial attack is that which accepts the same data and then shows that the argument does not exclude the presence of contingent elements in God's total nature.

I have called this the coup de culture, in which Judeo / Christian moral philosphy (which is different from religious faith), the once generally accepted value system of the West is being supplanted by a (roughly) utilitarian / hedonistic (not in the sensual sense) / scientism - radical environmentalism view of life.

But such a view of life, which at once accepts man's present limitations and believes in his ultimate potentialities, is only possible to the one who has true religious faith.

In view of the central importance of this doctrine it matters less whether it is readily accepted by our contemporaries, provided that its message is not interpreted in a narrow, selfishly individualistic sense, but that the gracious divine act which opens man to God is from the beginning understood also as creating authentic community among men.

Whatever one's view of the personal responsibility involved on the part of the alcoholic, one can certainly accept the fact that «society greases the slope down which he slides.»

In that case, the generalization began with the accepted scientific view regarding the electromagnetic field of activity pervading space and time, and rose beyond the limits of that physical theory to posit the ontological framework which the theory itself presupposes.

Assuming these traits are fundamental to the American political mind, most political theorists see this as reflecting the classical liberal mind — distinct from the «modern liberal» view which accepts the legitimacy of the welfare state — not a conservative mind.

You said — «God accepts human nature is because we are the only species that can give him what he wants — which, in the view of Genesis, is bloody, burned animal sacrifices.»

In fact, according to the Bible, the reason that God accepts human nature is because we are the only species that can give him what he wants — which, in the view of Genesis, is bloody, burned animal sacrifices.

Study of Scripture through the filter of man's biases results in the type of man - centered ideas proferred by Baden, like «God learns to accept their inherently evil nature», and humans «are the only species that can give him what he wants — which, in the view of Genesis, is bloody, burned animal sacrifices», and «it is, rather, our job to make ourselves uncomfortable that he might be appeased.»

That is, they have set aside the traditional understanding of God as a unique spiritual substance in which all three persons somehow share and have moved to a more contemporary understanding of God as an interpersonal process or a community of three coequal persons.1 In effect, they have abandoned the Aristotelian world view in which individual substance was the first category of being and have accepted (even for the doctrine of God) a process understanding of reality.

It is, however, basically compatible with a Whiteheadian world view, in my judgment, provided that one accepts a key point on which I differ, if not from Whitehead, at least from some Whiteheadians.

But Hartshorne, as his career progressed became less and less willing to use the term monad,» and he accepted Fechner's distinction between the two types of panpsychism (or «psychicalism,» as Hartshorne came to prefer): the «monadic,» which he associates with Leibniz and rejects, and the «synechological» which he associates with Fechner's view and is willing to accept with some qualifications.

St. Thomas Aquinas was also a «double - man», in that while he accepted and sought to develop a Christian interpretation of Aristotelian ideas in which Aristotle's «unmoved mover» was given priority over the relational view of God, at the same time in his own sermons, prayers, and occasionally throughout his writings there is the stress on exactly that relational view.

I also noticed that your moderator tend to agree more with the liberal views only... which means he accept contents that are inline with the liberal views.

In an earlier era, freethinkers understood that the society in which they lived depended in part on the basic view of the world accepted by their fellow citizens — hence Robert Ingersoll and Elizabeth Cady Stanton not only defended a clear churchstate separation but commented onthe merits of specific religious ideas held by their contemporaries.

The contemporary NEED to be tolerant and not the traditional usage of the word (accepting that someone else's view be heard) we have a new definition which is framed as being only able to say that their claim is as valid as any other.

It questions your world view which, incidentally, is too flimsy and weak to accept a coexistence with any other.

Values must be defended by appealing to other more fundamental values and beliefs that are also yours (perhaps you will refer to the Bible or the Qur «an or some other sacred text) which are not going to be accepted by those who have basic disagreements with your point of view in the first place.

In the previous chapter we have seen some of the reasons why Macgregor, like many others, accepted the more spiritual view as the earlier one, to which materialistic features were added out of apologetic motives.

In this period, it is true, the J writer, according to the generally accepted view, was penning his remarkable history, which, like every history worth reading, was also a philosophy.

Apparently, she had mentioned two women that had entered into what they termed a «covenant friendship», which the guy from Exodus termed a «sexless marriage» as it had all the trappings of a marriage without the sexual relationship as they accepted the view that gay sex was sinful.

I maintained that, contrary to the commonly expressed or tacitly accepted view, the era of active evolution did not end with the appearance of the human zoological type: for by virtue of his acquirement of the gift of individual reflection Man displays the extraordinary quality of being able to totalize himself collectively upon himself, thus extending on a planetary scale the fundamental vital process which causes matter, under Certain conditions, to organize itself in elements which are ever more complex physically, and psychologically ever more centrated.

It would mean accepting a view of the world in our faith and religion which we should deny in our everyday life.

Black theology can not accept a view of God which does not represent him as being for blacks and thus against whites... black [204] people have no time for a neutral God... There is no use for a God who loves whites the same as blacks... What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal.

It should not accept their advice or motivation but should look behind this to the judgment which God pronounces on it, and which may be the very opposite of what the world has in view.

So far as the last two are concerned, we have assumed the results of our previous work in The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, except that we have modified them where necessary in view of the more stringent criteria for authenticity which we have come to accept in the period between the two works.

In a time when anything can happen — and usually does — the question is not which point of view is true, but which one we should accept, and then, with God's help, try to make come true.

Our educational task, if we accept Whitehead's view of metaphysics, is to assist the student to look on the world or the universe as a process or organism in which God is at work; to understand how God can be in our midst and yet stand behind the process as eternal and changeless.

The question is not which point of view is true, but which one we should accept, and then, with God's help, try to make it come true.

Although materialism rejects the Cartesian dualism of two kinds of actual entities, it does accept the Cartesian view of «matter» or «the physical» upon which that dualism was based.

Earlier writers had recognized that Volkmar went too far in his attempted demonstration of Mark's dependence upon Paul — he found evidence of such dependence on almost every page of the Gospel — but his view was such a welcome relief from the one - sided Tübingen theory, according to which Mark was a «neutral» in the great apostolic controversy over Jewish Christianity, that the main thesis of Volkmar was accepted without careful scrutiny of his supporting arguments.

Finally, there is cognitive surrender, in which, in Berger's terms, «one simply accepts the fact that the majority is right, then adapts oneself to that point of view.»

This is no slight problem in view of the fact that there is bad theology in many of the hymns, and the Apostle's Creed, along with great eternally true affirmations, declares belief in such matters as the resurrection of the body, which few people who say it now accept.

This implication of Whitehead's view must be fully faced and accepted, and it is this kind of situation which poses the moral dilemma for God.

So these «internal» arguments against free will theism are purely ad hominem, drawing upon ethical views that free will theists are thought to accept but which need not be shared by the process theist making the argument.

«As with any group it has the right to decide which members to accept and not accept especially when it is based on a religious view.

Part of the reason for Neville's less plausible interpretation is his commitment to a Platonic view of universals, which leads him to formulate the ultimate issue in a way that Hartshorne would presumably not accept.

The first is «cognitive surrender,» in which, as Berger puts it, «one simply accepts the fact that the majority is right, then adapts oneself to that point of view.»

This alternative is to accept the overwhelmingly prevalent view which he calls evolutionary and to explain Christianity and Christian beliefs within that context.

Even if I accepted the plenary, infallible, literal view of the Bible (which I do NOT), I still have to contend with the reality that there are so many denominations out there that there has to be a variety of ways to interpret the book.