Sentences with phrase «biblical argument for»

Yet Claiborne's biblical argument for abolition ignores passages in the Bible directly pertinent to the conclusion he claims to establish.

The biblical argument for the approach developed here is that Jesus was heralding a new age of human responsibility for personal and world development.

Many evangelicals tend to think Catholics believe this because of tradition only, but Catholics make a biblical argument for this view.

Not exact matches

Some, like Yoram Hazony in his» Biblical Case for Limited Government,» have even offered sophisticated (if in the end limited) arguments for why a restricted role for government is itself a Judeo - Christian value.

Some would even suggest worry is a sin, which is not a biblical argument and not in line with a God who constantly seeks to love us, care for us and walk with us.

For the kids at home, this shabby assertion that biblical words equates truth is how we get circular arguments.

About the latter, for example, they imply that Christian support for Israel relies on particular beliefs about biblical prophecies while they ignore more prudential arguments in Israel's favor.

The best biblical support for this argument is the story of Job.

Persuaded that no biblical or theological arguments for same - sex relations have survived his initial blasts, Gagnon conducts a mopping - up operation using biological and social - scientific data.

This accounts for the ecclesiastical opposition to Charles Darwin's work on evolution and to the arguments of critical Biblical scholars, which implied that not all statements in scripture were factually correct.

Arguments based on biblical criticism are not decisive for or against belief in the virginal conception.

Not to mention, this entire post is one long and contra - biblical argument that you / we shouldn't argue about theology, without ever setting forth clear and logical propositions that NOT arguing (again, fill in whatever verb you're more comfortable with, the result is the same) theology honors God more than standing in the gap and defending the truth he has set forth once and for all.

To put it — for the sake of argument — a bit too simply: there have been behind the civil religion from the beginning two great structures of interpretation, the one I shall call biblical, the other utilitarian.

ddeevviinn, you said; «It is in this land of reality that 90 % (in actuality a little less, but for sake of argument we'll use this figure) of the population has determined that the Judeo - Christian God revealed in the biblical literature is valid.»

It is in this land of reality that 90 % (in actuality a little less, but for sake of argument we'll use this figure) of the population has determined that the Judeo - Christian God revealed in the biblical literature is valid.

For example, if you challenge a particular Reformed understanding of a biblical text based on exegetical arguments, the response you will likely get is, «Well, that is wrong because Augustine and Calvin said this...»

Only if everyone agreed that biblical prophecies have come true, when this be good evidence to use in your argument for the divinity of Jesus.

For the British, it was the actual experience of slavery in some of its most brutal forms in the West Indies that precipitated thinking hard about slavery, which then precipitated biblical and theological arguments against it, which then led to political action.»

A few misleading accusations against the Bible» on slavery or women's rights, for example» are enough to cause modern conservatives to abandon Biblical arguments altogether.

Biblical passages against ho.mose.xuality do not provide a compelling argument against gay marriage (for reasons I can not go into here).

Furthermore, for someone who claims to support «biblical manhood» and «biblical womanhood,» Wilson's argument has no support from scripture whatsoever.

For me the difference between the biblical gospels and the later Gnostic gospels was obvious when I read them, even before I was a believer; and there are plenty of reasonable arguments for the case that the four gospels of the Bible are the most accurate historical accounts that we have of Jesus» liFor me the difference between the biblical gospels and the later Gnostic gospels was obvious when I read them, even before I was a believer; and there are plenty of reasonable arguments for the case that the four gospels of the Bible are the most accurate historical accounts that we have of Jesus» lifor the case that the four gospels of the Bible are the most accurate historical accounts that we have of Jesus» life.

Timpson follows Pope John Paul II in using the story of Tobit as a biblical base for his argument, but does not discuss the Pope's theology of the body with its rich idea of sexuality as a gift.

While Matthew is essentially just presenting the same arguments various biblical scholars have been making for decades, he summarized the position so well, it's worth sharing for discussion.

Ok, well, for starts if you are basing your argument off of the fossil layers, which you said counters the Biblical order of creation.

JEDP is an outdated understanding of biblical criticism and has been discarded by most mainline Abrahamic biblical scholars for over a decade.Other than your whole JEDP point for argument, you deliver a modestly sound criticism of biblical criticism and interpretation.

«As an argument against this way of thinking, this kind of idolatry, I turn to the work of Walter Brueggemann, who, in an interview last year with Krista Tippett for On Being, explained the reason for the abundance of metaphors we find for God in the scriptures this way: «The Biblical defense against idolatry is plural metaphors.

To me, for example, one of the most exciting recent developments in Spinoza scholarship is Carlos Fraenkel's argument that Spinoza could have adopted a more conciliatory approach to biblical interpretation, one that would reinterpret the Bible in accordance with his teachings, thus mitigating their heretical tone.

Popularizations often have this effect, but Bloom is a major figure and a serious literary critic (jacket - cover blurbs rightly identify him as «America's pre-eminent literary critic» and «the critic of our time»), so in trying to comprehend the level of the argument I found myself opting at times for disingenuousness, bombast or simple ignorance of the field of biblical studies.

Equally puzzling is the inclusion of Edmund Leach's essay «Fishing for Men on the Edge of the Wilderness,» which has little to recommend it but the author's eminence as perhaps the world's leading structural anthropologist — who here wishes to demonstrate that structuralism enables a style of biblical exegesis not unlike «the typological style of argument employed by the majority of early Christian writers.»

Moreover, the impressive breadth of Ruether's argument makes her susceptible to criticism from a variety of quarters: biblical scholars may disagree with her interpretation of Paul; environmental scientists, with her figures on atmospheric carbon dioxide content; and agricultural and nutritional experts, with her recipe for relying on consumption of seasonal, locally produced foods.

Robinson, in his address as outgoing president of the Society of Biblical Literature in December 1981, presented a detailed case for the argument that the earliest resurrection traditions were luminous appearances of Jesus, while stories of physical resurrection were secondary.