Sentences with phrase «as social evils»

By working to get these recognised as social evils akin to racism or sexism [2] it has been possible to get towards the goal, which is that homosexual behaviour is firmly accepted in society and that society should be indifferent to the form of relationships which individuals choose to enter or make the basis of their family lives.

As the social evils multiply and the exploitation of the lower classes increases, the need for religious morality is recognized and the penal laws of religion come into force.

The end point should not be forgotten and that is that opposition to homosexuality («homophobia») will be treated as a social evil.

«Heterosexism» is recognised as another social evil, more akin to «sectarianism» as it is understood by the Executive.

Not exact matches

The editors viewed their job as a committed ministry and believed that they were working toward building a positive society by calling attention to social evils and praising worthwhile social developments.

But in the absence of such means, the tradition of just war views armed conflict as an appropriate way to resist evil, protect innocent lives and restore just social relationships.

The unprincipled free reign of individual choice has, of course, long been seen as the sure prelude to social evil.

Conversely, a social evil, such as the decline of the two - parent American family, need not be the cause of all the world's ills, such as the bubble in the housing market.

One of the biggest fallouts (to oversimplify) then was that conservatives cared about personal morality and not involvement in social ethics / issues of evil, while liberals cared about social ethics / issues but were seen as lax about morality.

His conclusion: Evil is multicausal, brings together individual and social factors (Robespierre probably would have lived out his life as a harmless provincial lawyer if not for the French Revolution), and is particular (every act of evil has its own stoEvil is multicausal, brings together individual and social factors (Robespierre probably would have lived out his life as a harmless provincial lawyer if not for the French Revolution), and is particular (every act of evil has its own stoevil has its own story).

as the source of outward evil and on regeneration of spiritual quality as the basis of social reformation.

If on the social group as a whole Yahweh's wrath was falling, the punishment was an inevitable consequence of the way individuals were thinking — «Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts».

Neither system is invoked by name, but in their complete violation, the novel presents not a world in which evil has triumphed, but one in which the basic obligations of humans as social beings — to establish civil society and recourse for its governance — are ignored.

Some of the insights provided by the first phase of liberation theology seem too important to let slip between the cracks — for instance, the centrality of the category «the poor» for biblical interpretation; the awareness of structural, not just individual, evil; the use of the social sciences as dialogue partner for theological discourse; and the need to apply a hermeneutic of suspicion to theology itself.

Even if the human person is most himself and freest when least encumbered with social, traditional, religious or familial ties, society is a necessary evil which protects as much as possible the freedom of the individual without being much of a threat to it.

I suppose people who owned slaves felt pretty discriminated against as the social tide change and America progressed and realized the evil that was slavery.

Churches are required to be agents of resistance to genocide or any other kind of social evil, as a basic expression of faithfulness to their God, their sacred scriptures and their social responsibility.

In both the Roman Catholic and the fundamentalist Protestant traditions there is an impulse toward contrition for what is recognized as sin and a channel of escape, but relatively little attention is given either to the more subtle sins of the spirit or to major social evils in which as sinners we all participate.

The latter sees social life as a cycle like the cycle of natural seasons which is the basic framework for life; therefore nothing new enters the scene, and any creativity that affects the harmony of life and nature is considered a spiritual evil.

He concludes that more attention to the Bible did not necessarily mean more virtuous action; that personal engagement with the Bible did result in self - sacrificing service, but also in divisive hubris, mistaken interpretations (such as the identification of America with ancient Israel), and blindness to social evils; and that Protestant spiritual individualism undercut corrupt hierarchies and supported democracy, but also promoted political excesses and violent anti-Catholicism.

In that universe of discourse, belief in God spells trust in life and man, as capable of transcending the potentialities of evil that inhere in his animal heredity, in his social heritage, and in the conditions of his environment.

Just as the Church never failed in its works of charity, so it was never completely blind to the social evils and economic injustice of the day.

The alleged subordination of the gospel to Karl Marx is illustrated, for example, by charging that «false» liberation theology concentrates too much on a few selected biblical texts that are always given a political meaning, leading to an overemphasis on «material» poverty and neglecting other kinds of poverty; that this leads to a «temporal messianism» that confuses the Kingdom of God with a purely «earthly» new society, so that the gospel is collapsed into nothing but political endeavor; that the emphasis on social sin and structural evil leads to an ignoring or forgetting of the reality of personal sin; that everything is reduced to praxis (the interplay of action and reflection) as the only criterion of faith, so that the notion of truth is compromised; and that the emphasis on communidades de base sets a so - called «people's church» against the hierarchy.

But aside from that this potential can be used for good (such as orienting us as a community to bring practical expressions of God's love to the world, such as pursuing social justice) or for evil (such as when we turn our worship services into corporate naval gazing that never moves beyond the intention to touch the world — there is far too much of this kinda BS pretending to be worship of God, the Bible would call this idolatry).

As citizens, we need to dispense with the idea that pluralism implies an obligation to ignore or accommodate serious evil in the name of social harmony.

We can appreciate the Christian absolutist who seeks to stand wholly against involvement in the evil of society; yet as he does so he must realize that those who are working for relative gains within the social order are doing a necessary work in the service of God.

As we are both saints and sinners, so our social institutions embody both good and evil - at the same time.

The difference lies mainly in the fact that the earlier exponents of the social gospel thought of the coming of the kingdom of God as progressive growth toward a better world through the conquest of these social evils.

The plight today is that we experience an enormity to social evils, but we have no mechanism such as «original sin» to account for them theologically.

As the reform movements sweeping through Eastern Europe are learning, denunciation of evil and corruption is a necessary first step toward social change, but constructing new institutional arrangements is by far the more arduous task.

In political and social thought, no Christian has ever written a more profound defense of the democratic idea and its component parts, such as the dignity of the person, the sharp distinction between society and the state, the role of practical wisdom, the common good, the transcendent anchoring of human rights, transcendent judgment upon societies, and the interplay of goodness and evil in human individuals and institutions.

Theists quite properly see the hand of God at work in major evolutionary changes such as the origin of life, but also in such everyday occurrences as the development of a fertilized egg into a cocker pup, and too in the social turmoil — including very real moral and physical evil — that accompanies economic, technological, and intellectual change.

When we think of all that has come from him in the impulse toward human freedom and dignity — the challenge of ignorance and the attempt to remedy it, the concern for and conquest of disease, the sensitivity to the needs and plight of the weak, destitute, helpless, and those in every kind of suffering, the stabilizing of the inner lives of millions of his followers around the world, and the fostering of a prophetic attack on such giant social evils as prejudice, injustice, and war — when we consider the things that have stemmed from this «penniless teacher of Nazareth,» we are dull indeed if the wonder of it does not sweep over our souls.

You think that it is possible to talk meaningfully about «good and evil» «right and wrong» when criticizing the sins of Christians while simultaneously subscribing to the notion that neither sin nor good and evil exist as ultimate categories but only as personal and social constructs.

How many evils and horrors in our social and historical life can be accounted for simply as the result of attempts by powerful individuals to conquer or cover up their own private disgrace?

While I've become disillusioned with this approach, I've also found the evolutionary optimism / social gospel route to be discouraging because, as Wright suggests, «it will never solve evil retrospectively... (and it) underestimates the nature and power of evil itself...»

And on what is, in a sense, a higher level still we have the disquieting example of such animal groups as termites, ants and bees, our ancestors in the Tree of Life, which, afflicted by an evil of which we seem to perceive the symptoms in ourselves, have lapsed into a state of social enslavement — the very fate towards which an implacable destiny seems to be impelling us.

My concern is to show that in each of the several topics to be considered — Christianity as an organic whole; the fact of evil known to every one of us; the meaning of human personality in itself, in its familial, and in its social aspects; and the religious community — becoming and belonging must be taken with utmost seriousness.

Radical conservatives would more frequently criticize the evils of U.S. policy at home and abroad, defend economic justice as vigorously as they do liberty, and refuse to allow their valid opposition to Marxism - Leninism to lead them to regard all Third World movements for social change as Marxist - Leninist fronts.

In the minds of many a successful ministry now entailed a study of society and of the social forces involved in the shaping of the life of the individual, an awareness of social evils as well as personal sins, and some knowledge of the means of «social salvation» as well as of individual redemption.

The reality of death as a fact: the inescapable element of decision and the consequences in searching appraisal: the social or communal nature of human existence, coupled with the honest recognition that no man is in and of himself a perfect agent of the purpose of God and the love of God: the joy of fulfillment with one's brethren in the imperishable reality of God: and the terrible character of evil — these were values which the older scheme somehow affirmed and expressed.

The modern, secular version of this view sees evil as a product of human institutions and social structures which can be overcome by human solutions.

We have sharp rhetoric about social justice, but the preferential option for the poor is an open - ended exhortation, not a precise moral demand like the condemnation of taking innocent life as an intrinsically evil act.

Affinities, Brown notes, include «the social or communal stress as a safeguard against individualistic Christianity, the stress on praxis, a methodology arising out of the human situation rather than being imposed on it, a passionate commitment to the dispossessed, and a recognition of the systemic nature of evil» (p. 141).

How long one shall continue to drink the consciousness of evil, and when one shall begin to short - circuit and get rid of it, are also matters of amount and degree, so that in many instances it is quite arbitrary whether we class the individual a once - born or a twice - born subject) Unquestionably, some men have the completer experience and the higher vocation, here just as in the social world; but for each man to stay in his own experience, whate'er it be, and for others to tolerate him there, is surely best.

Although many social critics have taken America as the particular scapegoat for contemporary evils, I have rejected anti-Americanism.

It took social scientists, for instance, to understand that parents in countries where girls are denied an education were not opposed to educating their daughters in principle, but very often simply wanted a certain kind of education — namely, one which is set within a religious context — for their daughters, and if that wasn't available (which it usually wasn't), they would choose no education at all as the lesser of two perceived evils.

On social media, we typecast our opponents as racists, corrupt or even evil.

This is largely because of the highly emotive nature of the sexual abuse of children, resulting from the perceived innocence of youth, the vulnerability of children and social conceptions of these child abusers as evil and beyond help.

It is social realism as seen by Hieronymus Bosch, and if you are looking for a vision of absolute evil, the absolute repudiation of humanity, there are a couple of scenes here that will serve your purpose well.