Sentences with phrase «between different churches»

Since those conditions will differ somewhat between different churches, it will be necessary to explore their details in bilateral discussions.

I've seen you, in your history, go back and forth, between different churches.

Although relations between different churches are now more friendly, the legacy of the divisions continues to this day.

Not exact matches

Jackson W. Carroll and Wade Clark Roof, researchers in the sociology of religion (at Duke University Divinity School and at the University of California — Santa Barbara), analyze three age categories — pre-boomers (born prior to 1946), boomers (born 1946 - 1964) and Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1980)-- who according to Carroll and Roof have profoundly different expectations of the church and of religion.

Third, and similarly, «martyrdom witnesses to friendship not only among Christian churches but also between religions,» because «members of different faiths recognise holiness in martyrdom.»

Yet there are fewer and fewer distinctions between them as different churches publish new versions.

We distinguish between our existence during the work week and our existence in the church as if we could compartmentalize ourselves in two different persons, time - dependent.

He identified the Church with the cause of the poor, with the longing for peace and decency between people of different beliefs and ideas, with large and noble aspirations, with sorrow for sin and with hope for the future.

And while «deep reasonings» of the three Abrahamic traditions are hardly a secret (most mosques, synagogues and churches admit guests, and most religion scholars publish their work in journals), Adams notes that «the quality of public debate between members of different traditions is dangerously low.

Yet despite the churches» traditional teaching on the subject, the demand to reject all forms of discrimination seems likely to lead to growing acceptance of different lifestyles and patterns of relationship, although this is already a divisive matter between conservative and more liberal Christians.

We watch twitter fights between pastors from different denominations like tennis matches, as the unity of the Church dissolves.

Yet even though the differences in usage between Old Testament and New Testament caused some second century Christians to conclude that two different realities were referred to, the apostolic church was adamant, that it was none other than the God of Israel who had spoken to men in Jesus.

Some of the differences become theologically technical, with distinctions drawn not only between mainline and conservative churches, but also between different varieties of evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and pentecostalism.

Jefferson's letter in response argued for a very different concept - a «wall of separation between Church & State» - that, according to him, was enshrined in the First Amendment.

This book is about seeking understanding and unity between the different journeys that all of us are on regarding church.

Then on Sunday at St. Patrick's: «For all of us, I think, one of the great disappointments that followed the Second Vatican Council, with its call for a greater engagement in the Church's mission to the world, has been the experience of division between different groups, different generations, different members of the same religious family.

Parishioners can literally shop between different Orthodox churches in their area to find the one whose policies and traditions suit them best.

What is different, though, between homosexuality in America and polygamy in Africa is that no mainline Christian Church in Africa has normalized polygamy as a biblically sanctioned Christian marriage as some mainline American churches in the West, including the PC (USA), have done with homosexuality.

According to verse 6, if we as the church are not abiding in Christ as defined by Jesus here and John in 1 John, then when the world looks at us, they will not see any difference between us and the world, and will then say to themselves, «Why do I need Christianity if they are no different than us?»

This was never going to last, since heresy and relativism had, of course, never disappeared from the «papal agenda» and neither — perhaps more to the point — had his (and his predecessor's) analysis that disunity in the modern church was the result of a clash between two different interpretations of the Council itself, one right, the other wrong: as Benedict once more explained it, as his first Christmas as Pope approached in December 2005, «On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call «a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture» [i.e., the line peddled by The Tabletfor thirty years]; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.

For different reasons, the Orthodox churches viewed with apprehension the closer relationship between the International Missionary Council and the World Council of Cchurches viewed with apprehension the closer relationship between the International Missionary Council and the World Council of ChurchesChurches.

That these churches are not acceptable to Bob is evidence of the conflict between different Christians.

Correlation between churches from different countries ought to be understood as helping each other to enhance the execution of the threefold task in their respective contexts, and thus must bear a formative, cooperative and reciprocal character.

Highlights for me included: 1) Belcher's call in Chapter 3 to find common ground in classic / orthodox Christianity (the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed) which, if applied, would dramatically reduce some of the name - calling and accusations of heresy that have been most unhelpful in the discussion between the emerging and traditional camps, 2) Belcher's fabulous treatment of postmodernism and postfoundationalism in Chapter 4, where he rightly explains that when talking about postmodernism, folks in the emerging church and the traditional church are using the same term to refer to two completely different things, and where he concludes that «a third way rejects classical foundationalism and hard postmodernism,» and 3) Belcher's fair handling of the atonement issue in Chapter 6, in which he clarifies that most emergering church leaders «are not against atonement theories and justification, but want to see it balanced with the message of the kingdom of God.»

It was, in other words, reform through re-form: reform through a recovery of the «form» given to the Church by Christ himself, who had distinguished sharply between what was owed to Caesar and what was owed to God (Matthew 22.21), thus giving the world the novel idea that religious and political authority were different.

Many religious leaders, as well as public officials, talk of friendship between church and state, and claim that in charging the government to be neutral regarding religion the founders meant «neutral among different sects.»

As James Davison Hunter suggests in Culture Wars, churches have been paralyzed by a division between orthodox and progressive parties that see the family issue — as they see abortion, homosexuality, education and popular culture — in vastly different ways.

Many of the differences between the paid - time broadcasters and the sustaining - time broadcasters have come about because of their different understandings of the relationship among the church, the Christian message, and American culture.

If such a solution to the civil religion problem does eventually emerge, a solution based on the common acceptance of certain political values rather than a struggle to the death between different religiopolitical ideologies, it will depend on changes in both the church and the socialist left.

This debate between different religious broadcasters and church leaders reflects differing attitudes towards technology, involving again the differences that have been noted between emphasis on personal morality and corporate morality.

Rather than use Niebuhr's schema, I want to propose a different set of models for the interaction between church and state in the North American context.

The sharp, black - and - white divisions between church and government which some of the sixteenth - century Anabaptists experienced is going to be different from the experience of most North American Christians in the twentieth century.

In the past, the theologian would distinguish between God, Christendom, Christianity and church, so that a different balance of «yes» and «no» could be uttered to each.

NOW WE CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THE EXTENT OF DEMENTIA IN AMERICA Dale Benjamin Drakeford 8-31-12 When Clint Eastwood, a self - proclaimed «conservative» (who has lived more like a Joseph Smith liberal spurning nine children with four different women, sporting a clinch fisted personae in his private exenterates over public exhibitions) talks vulgar to an empty chair, Marco Rubio (a small government advocate who loss his roots somewhere between caffeine - free tea and a caffeine rich Cuban cigar) slips Freudian to advocate «large government» in a failed attempt to wax brilliant but came off bane (pun intended) to the capitalization of the nation, Paul Ryan can lie and demonize his role against the truth until his nose is a foot long and not one member of his audience will notice, and Mitt Romney can anecdote on his personal family, business and church goings on as oppose to his solutions for unemployment, banking corruption, housing displacement, militarism, planetary illness and international human rights unrest, we can clearly understand the extent of dementia in America.

As a fact, in Argentina, the legalization of divorce was the result of a struggle between different governments and conservative groups, mostly connected to the Catholic Church.

Sarajevo is a beautiful historical city nested between five mountains, known by its cultural and religious diversities — the place in which Islam, Judaism and Christianity are present in centuries, and towers of different churches, mosques and a synagogue almost literary touching each other, placed in the same little square.

Hoping to avoid the risk of breaching an ill - defined boundary between church and state, some public school officials have prohibited elementary school pupils from distributing trinkets with religious messages, and thereby encountered a different peril.

Moving between their worlds, Christian and Jewish, African - American and white, impoverished and well - to - do, Albom observes how these very different men employ faith similarly in fighting for survival: the older, suburban rabbi embracing it as death approaches; the younger, inner - city pastor relying on it to keep himself and his church afloat.

One of the most exciting and unique things about the xenosaga series is that you can look foward to seeing different character models with each new game because appearence of the characters change with each game, not because the characters have aged but for other reasons.There is one special thing that xenosaga episode three has that should have been in the other xenosaga games is the swimsuit mode because it allows you to watch movie scenes with the characters in there swimsuits but for some reason not all of the movie scenes in xenosaga 3 can be viewed in swimsuit mode, I guess it would have made the movie less serious or something.My favorite movie scenes in xenosaga are blue testament, white testament, KOSMOS verses Black Testament, any movie with Luis Virgil becaus ehe is my favorite character in the game because he's passionate and i don't think that he is a bad guy since he was able to brek free from being a testament and the only real reasons why he became a testament was because he wanted to be able to visit that old church on miltia and to gain power to prevent death.I also love Luis Virgil and all of the movie scenes that he appear in becaus they are very dramatic.The best thing about the xenosaga series is thst the story is very dee, interesting, and shocking and anyone who has played the game in order from episode one through three will definitely say the same thing.There is no doubt that anyone who has completed episode one and two will be stunned when every secret and mystery is unraveled in episode three.The one thing that I can't seem to under stand is why do some of the characters have to travel back to the earth in the end, will shion and the gang make it back to earth or will there descendants finish the mission and find earth in the end, Chaos and Nephilim told the group that the key to saving humanity lies on earth, what I want to know is what is it and how will it be used to save the universe, Even in the end new mysteries arose and remained unraveled.If there is any one outher who has has the awnswer to any of these questions please let me know when you write you're review or else there has just got to be a xenosaga four on the way, (crying) they just can't leave the story end this way.The only thing that dissapointed me about the game at first was the battle system because on the back of the case of xenosaga three said that the best aspect of the previous battles systems from episode one were combined to form a new battle system, If namco had really done this Xenosaga episode three would have had a better battle system in my opinion because I belive that the best aspect of xenosaga episode one were the special atacks wich are better than the those of episode three and the best aspect of episode three as the break system wich was also better than those of episode three.I think that namco should have given xenosaga episode 3 the battle system of episode 2 combined episode ones style of special attack, but doing this would have probably made the battle system of xenosaga episode three boring because the same old tactics would have to be used in a new game and the battle system most likely would not be as realistic as it is but it would probably be cooler.However the ability to summon all four Erde Kaisers including the new Erde Kasier Sgma my most favorite summon in the world at will and use new Ether and Tech attacks along with the new Counter and Revenge abilities gave xenosaaga episode three more than boost that it needed to have an descent battle systemThe E.S battle system of xenosaga episode 3 is way more better than those of episod one and two though, I must say that Namco really outdid themselves with the E.S battle system of xenosaga episode because the other E.S battle system from the two previos games weren't good, luckily they made up for it with the character battle system.In episode one I never really wanted to use anA.G.W.S, lucky for me they were optional but in episode two sadly it is manatory that you pilot an E.S to progress in the game in Episode three you piloting an E.S is also mandatory to progress in the game but the difference between the three episode is that will be sorry in episode three you will ge glad that you are using an E.S because their battle system is extremely cool.Xenosaga is most definitely one of the besrt RPG games in the world andit is far more better than any final fantasy game that Square Enix has ever made but for some reason it still score lower than Some Final Fantasy and other Sqare Enix games on this site.I bet that if xenosaga was actually named Final Fantasy and had a subtitle it and if it wre made by sqare Enix it would have probably been more famous and it would have scored higher even though it is still the same gameIn the end with every thing being written said and done all i can say is that I feel more at peace now that I have defended this underated game.All I have to say now is that TURN BASED GAMES RULE!

Oh, did I tell you the buyer and the seller also had two dynamically different theologies between the churches they each ran?