Sentences with phrase «as against the teaching»

We have seen that what was decisive in the appearance of the Buddha as against the teaching of the Upanisads was the reintroduction of personal power into the worldview of the Indians; the thought of help, of merciful help, was thoroughly impressed upon them.

Not exact matches

(Post-financial-crisis lore has taught us that these instruments are sometimes used to bet against things, but CDS are most often used as hedges against bets that the world won't end.)

A splinter group known as the Kharijites taught that it was acceptable to excommunicate and legitimize jihad against other Muslims, including Muslim rulers, if they were judged guilty of the commission of certain sins.

And maybe Brigitte would have loved him as a pastor following his teaching and preaching against Jews at his time.

Investment for return (as Rodney Stark relates in The Victory of Reason) largely occurred against the grain of Church teaching, the Spanish Scholastics being largely ignored, and it was Calvin's application of biblical law to trade and commerce that created the competitive tension under which a millennium of misapplication and resultant economic suppression could begin to be corrected.

For example, advocates of autonomy might defend euthanasia as death with dignity, while most Christian teaching judges euthanasia and physician - assisted suicide to be actions beneath and against human dignity.

In order for things to change, pastors and Christian leaders who believe that acceptance, fidelity, and monogamy are a better alternative to shame and promiscuity have got to speak up and speak out against the teaching that states * all * homosexual expression is sinful... and proclaim that message as misinformed, damaging to God's children, and unchristian.

But within the context of people saying they are SBNR, I don't really see such people reacting against a loosely defined definition of religion as merely moral teachings administered with certain rituals and structures.

(i) a woman's right to choose; (ii) teaching evolution in school; (iii) medical immunization of teen girls against HPV; (iv) assisted suicide; (v) gay marriage; (vi) my right to view art and theatre deemed «offensive,» «blasphemous» or «obscene» by theists (vii) basic $ ex education for older school children; (viii) treating drug abuse as principally a medical issue; (xi) population control; (x) buying alcohol on a Sunday; (xi) use of condoms and other contraceptives (xii) stem cell research.

Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis By L. Gregory Jones Eerdmans, 312 pages, $ 28 Jones teaches at Loyola College in Maryland, and here offers a bracing polemic against and constructive alternative to «the therapeutic society,» as Philip Rieff famously called it.

I would lean against the side of the tub into Brian's arms for the contractions (he thanked his high school football coach often for teaching him a good three - point stance as he maintained it for almost 2 hours!).

It forces recognition of the fact that Jesus» teaching did not center around such ideas as the infinite worth of personality, the cultivation of the inner life, the development of man toward an ideal; that Jesus spoke rather of the coming Kingdom of God, which was to be God's gift, not man's achievement, of man's decision for or against the Kingdom, and of the divine demand for obedience.

On the other hand, Paul told Titus about Elders, «He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.»

Nothing in that teaching precludes, and much in that teaching seems to invite, the hope that everyone» past, present, and future» will be saved, even as we are painfully aware that that may not be the case, and even as we guard against the sin of presumption, which is to take for granted that it will be the case with us.

Why would you fight against teaching the Egyptian mythology or the Greek or roman mythologies in schools as if they were actually just as valid as the xian mythology?

And, by the way, Andrew and OLMS, if you have something against David as your former pastor, Jesus taught how to dea with it.

In the official course books, any social norms which are opposed to Catholic moral teaching are treated as «controversial» and presented with a range of views for and against.

All of them use the current values of secular society as the point of reference against which to present the moral teachings of the Catholic faith.

It is taken for granted in the recorded teaching of Jesus (and in the New Testament generally) that this life is lived against a background of what can literally be translated as «the Life of the Ages.»

Some people have raised the question as to whether teaching an alcoholic that his drinking is an illness will not give him a heavy weapon to use against those who are trying to persuade him to stop that drinking; saying that he might then be able to shrug the whole thing off with some statement like «How can I help it — it's a disease, isn't it?»

Their stories often suggest the appalling extent to which the church tends not simply to ignore sexual, physical, emotional and spiritual violence against women and children as a major crisis, but actually to provide theological justification for this violence in its teachings about male headship, women's subordination, and the sinful character of sexuality.

How do you expect to be taken seriously as a «good» Christian when you go against one of the basic fundamental's of the teachings of your book of fiction?

«Until we know the power of divine grace, we read in the Bible concerning eternal punishment, and we think it is too heavy and too hard, and we are apt to kick against it, and find out some heretic or other who teaches us another doctrine; but when the soul is really quickened by divine grace, and made to feel the weight of sin, it thinks the bottomless pit none too deep, and the punishment of hell none too severe for sin such as it has committed.

Any Catholic who rejects Catholic teaching, or who technically accepts it but minimizes it to the point of insignificance, is not a «moderate» Catholic but a dissenter, or one seeking approval from the world (a temptation Our Lord warns against)-- and should be identified as such.

I am against teachings that lead us to be as sinful as we were when Jesus found us.

We are called to be light and salt, and one way to do this is to stand up and speak out FOR BIBLICAL VALUES and against sin... yes, of course we should be preaching / teaching / living God's «theology of marriage» in our own marriages...... but God has clearly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and therefore, when our government says it's otherwise, we should be light and salt and speak up, and vote accordingly.

However we as Christians can not be required to teach what goes against our beliefs.

I always love how people who oppose the Church's teaching on genetic engineering, hom0s3xuality and marriage turn around and use them as slurs against someone.

Often times, the religious rights are self - righteous, but their lives may be full of conflicts against the Bible teaching; as the article points out, you can not follow all the rules laid out in the Old testaments, and if you believe the Bible literally, why do many religious rights do not follow as the Bible literally says.

In the greatest of all prayers we are taught to pray, «Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.»

The idea that Catholic just war teaching begins with a «presumption against war,» more recently phrased as «a strong presumption against the use of force,» first appears in the United States bishops» widely read 1983 pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace.

The premise of the church that we come as imperfect people and must change is actually against the teachings of Jesus.

The description of Catholic just war teaching as beginning with a presumption against war and ending with criteria whose function is to say when, if ever, that presumption can be overridden is faithful to neither of these Catholic traditions, that of the religious life or that of just war.

Mr Graham taught us that the bible commands we love all people regardless of race yet Mormons believe that blacks are the incarnated spirits of those people that turned against God as part of the insurrection.

@Crazy Horse, «So on a more seemingly simple issue as family planning, the easiest answer, «fix me so I don't make babies» — is in every aspect against the teachings of Jesus and Scripture.»

He Himself had wealth, He used capitalistic principles as the basis for most of His parables, and His teachings against greed were not to say that we couldn't have money, but rather, that money should not HAVE us.

The teachings of Jesus go against the grain as much today as they did when first uttered from the Savior's lips.

So the guy (Marcus Borg) is actually bringing controversy as a means to SELL HIS BOOK for his own financial gain and attention to his rebellion against the true teachings of God.

In the prevailingly liberal churches for years now few books have been written, few sermons have been preached, few church - school classes have been taught in which sin as sin against God has been the central theme.

How Christians could act as this is so against their teachings by Jesus Christ.

Inquisition, witch trials, laws against public office, teaching fiction as fact in public schools, etc... we can certainly handle what we're dealing with now, but we won't let it get out of hand ever again!

His own pet proof of «why there almost certainly is no God» (a proof in which he takes much evident pride) is one that a usually mild - spoken friend of mine (a friend who has devoted too much of his life to teaching undergraduates the basic rules of logic and the elementary language of philosophy) has described as «possibly the single most incompetent logical argument ever made for or against anything in the whole history of the human race.»

So on a more seemingly simple issue as family planning, the easiest answer, «fix me so I don't make babies» — is in every aspect against the teachings of Jesus and Scripture.

but muslims reproduce like virus and take over and then turn against the very hand that fed them (just as Kuran teaches)...

Jesus» teaching as a whole strikes out heavily against these traits in religious man.

There was, for example, in the eighties an Interfaith Colloquium against Apartheid and there were various interfaith gatherings on ecological issues as well as interfaith prayer and work for peace, but the Parliament for a moment captured the attention of the world and sought to show, at a time of intense conflict in former Yugoslavia and of communal troubles in India, that religions need not be a cause of division but could unite on certain basic ethical teachings.

His heaviest count against the prevailing teaching of his time is precisely this: that, starting with the best intentions, it had come to encourage this folly and evil, as if it were inseparable from a high moral standard.

And in the next place, describing what properly is defiance, it teaches that a man does wrong although he understands what is right, or forbears to do right although he understands what is right; in short, the Christian doctrine of sin is pure impertinence against man, accusation upon accusation; it is the charge which the Deity as prosecutor takes the liberty of lodging against man.

Someone please argue against me that Jesus and his teachings are a bad example of how we should live as human beings.

As growing numbers of ministers and teachers began to speak a word of judgment against the society of their day, a movement arose at Grinnell College, in Iowa, crying for the complete reconstruction of society on the basis of the New Testament teachings.