Sentences with phrase «by ideas of another religion»

(since he was being judged by ideas of another religion / belief system?).

Not exact matches

The company's new - found religion on harassment may have also been sparked by the fact that at least two of the companies that were rumored to be considering an acquisition of Twitter last fall — Salesforce and Disney — reportedly shelved the idea in part because of the environment of abuse that exists on the platform.

These are men greeds and are unrelated to religion nor it is in favor of religions... religion is a direct spritual connection between the Servent and his GOD... that was what most of us knew before we were spoiled by the «Islamic Belt Idea» that the West had introduced and marketed it in our MidEast area towards encouraging youth to join militants in «Jihad» establishing that belt surrounding and fighting the communists in Afghanistan and some Asian countries... Well now that has spoiled our life coming back on us and you but I do not see why should we innocents pay for your «Political Games»...!?

But Claire reminds me, now and then, that it is precisely events like these — well - intentioned educational initiatives that explicitly remove sex from the purview of family and religion — that promote the idea that sex can be engaged in without the consequences of sexually transmitted diseases, hurt feelings, and (by the way) children.

But some fundamentalist religions are stuck on the idea of using older translations, made by people who simply were uninformed or uneducated.

I think its a fantastic idea to «create your own religion,» but I know of no intelligent person who would say that «man exists by accident,» so I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Over a little more than 2000 years man has developed his own idea of a religion that he claims pleases the God represented by the Bible.

to Jake, in every era or times in the past, humans have different perception of reality, because our knowledge improves or changes toward sophistication, For example during the times of Jesus, there was no science yet as what we have today, since the religion in the past corresponds to their needs, it is true for them in the past, but today we already knew many new ideas and facts, so what is applicable in the past is no longer today, like religion, we have also to change to conform with todays knowledge.The creation or our origin for example is now explained beyond doubt by science as the big bang and evolution is the reason we become humans, is in contrast to creation in the bibles genesis,.

It is no accident that Platonic philosophy and the Christian religion readily discovered common ground, and that, in particular, Platonic ideas of the sublimity of the human soul were assimilated by Christian doctrine.

All religions today share a single, common «Ultimate» beyond them all — the set of ideas about God implied by Christian religiosity.

Of course religion is not true and there is no God, he opines, yet many of the ideas religions have spawned are «sporadically useful, interesting and consoling» and should be deliberately adapted by atheistOf course religion is not true and there is no God, he opines, yet many of the ideas religions have spawned are «sporadically useful, interesting and consoling» and should be deliberately adapted by atheistof the ideas religions have spawned are «sporadically useful, interesting and consoling» and should be deliberately adapted by atheists.

The global reach, extreme influence, and extreme importance of Christianity is largely due to the fact that the European races, largely Caucasoid, became the world's most dominant races as evidenced by their conquest and colonization of many parts of the world's major regions and because their religion invariably happened to be some form of Christianity, consequently, they gave the greater part of the world not only their languages, their customs, and their ideas, but also their religion including their version of what God looks like.

The alternative method, often used by scholars, considers one epoch of Biblical religion at a time, presenting the entire complex of ideas which characterized that era, and then moves on to study the next succeeding epoch as a whole.

In so far as Marx is seeking to bring the idea of «real distress» (as understood by religion) into relation with their human condition of distress (as understood by human beings) so as to transform the human condition, his critique of religion reveals an existential pathos», and it is religiously edifying.

The contact with Zoroastrianism, which was the dominant religion within the Achaemenid Empire founded by Cyrus the Great, as well as Hellenic thought led to incorporation of religious ideas from those cultures into Judaism, including the development of notions of an immaterial and immortal soul distinct from the body and a moralized afterlife.

love the idea that Andrew brings up: the idea of a figment or constructed Jesus given to you by religion / faith system / denomination.

We appropriately celebrate rather than deny the presence of potentially helpful ideas in other religions, whether those ideas are confirmations of truths already contained in Christianity, or whether they offer something new and heretofore unrecognized by Christianity.

in other words worshiping the idea's (or the one providing them) presented by any organization regardless of religion or be (lie) f system is incorrect since they can not absolutely define what they are pointing at.

Almost every religion has in it the presence of the idea that the divine is borne in some inexplicable ways by the human.

After all, the dominant religions in the United States keep their followers by encouraging them to remain ignorant of other religions out of fear they will find out that there's basically nothing new under the sun, and that the ideas of Christianity date all the way back to ancient Egyptian religion ant the mythology surrounding Horus and Set.

I can tell you as a religious studies scholar that your use of «religious» to differentiate between some idealized, sincere faith (a very Protestant idea, by the way) and hypocritical institutional religion and its trappings is pretty specious.

Religious people were one of the main targets... after did Marx not say «religion is an opiate»... an idea / phrase quoted rather enthusiastically by atheists the world over?

The problem of chronological and axiological priority of theory (myths, beliefs, ideas, concepts, doctrines, dogmata) and practice (worship, rites, ritual) in religion was discussed by students of different religions and civilizations (W. Robertson Smith, Andrew Lang, Wilhelm Schmidt, Otto Gruppe).

The idea of plausibility structures has provided sociologists with their best entrée to the study of religion within the perspective outlined by Peter Berger.

The idea of the non-overlapping magisteria of science and religion, proposed (separately) by Stephen Jay Gould and Langdon Gilkey, is peaceable, attractive, and well - intentioned, but when dealing with different aspects of causality, science and religion also need to interact.

The man they really need to consult is, once again, Cardinal Newman, who leveled devastating artillery against the argument from design, especially in The Idea of a University, which despite its well - deserved fame has long gone underutilized by philosophers of religion, perhaps because his critique of their work is so devastating.

By the way, I'm a Christian, but when I talk about these types of things I like to ignore all organized religion and just focus on the idea of a «creator» as it makes things much simpler.

Most don't make it past that step since the idea of magic unseen powers controlling your life is so ingrained in them by religions, but it's a good first step to rationalism.

Chad Since you are on this thread, what do you think about the exploitation of the idea of the god of Israel by the religions of Christianity?

For religion is life motived by ideas of God's will.

It was fascinating, and I think important, to see the development over the centuries of the philosophical rift which eventually grew between science and religion, as a result of which many scientists (although by no means all) abandoned any idea of a Creator God.

The simple fact that there have been so many different theistic religions throughout history, should show that the idea of a «god» is one that has been fabricated by humans to fill a very primitive need.

That premise does not by default mean that any of the religions of the world have any idea what the truth is.

George, Christianity took over the world by force, this is no difference (modern weapons maybe), but the idea of spreading religion at the point of a sword is not unique to Muslims.

But, also, any human with common sense knows that at this time, all religions and creeds known to men - are full of crap and instill separatism among groups of humans as if one is more valuable to God - they guy who supposedly made everyone and everything - separatistic ideas as «my book» my god» «my people» are the most beloved by God are wrong, will be always wrong and all religions are wrong and will always be wrong.

(g) The mythological element in the kerygma is not, we have shown, the importation into the New Testament of ideas from non-Biblical religions, ideas which could be eliminated or superseded by interpreting the underlying understanding of human life.

Religions which we regard as primitive sometimes surprise us by the comparative elevation of the moral ideas which they contain.

The good common sense of this book's argument against the Enlightenment - induced idea that religion causes war is, in the end, not overcome by the problems noted.

And the most communally binding of those ideas are by nature religious, whether or not they bear the label «religion.»

The whole force of the Christian religion, therefore, so far as belief in the divine personages determines the prevalent attitude of the believer, is in general exerted by the instrumentality of pure ideas, of which nothing in the individual's past experience directly serves as a model.

They got the support of the secular politicians because freedom to propagate religion was considered by them as part of the freedom to propagate cultural and political ideas.

Indeed, it has been supposed by some that the teraphim, household gods, (Genesis 35:4; 31:19; 30 - 35; I Samuel 15:23; 19:13, 16; II Kings 23:24) were originally images of ancestors; that they were honored as such and were part of the apparatus of popular religion; (Hosea 3:4) that mortuary customs which the prophetic school later condemned grew up around them; (Cf. Deuteronomy 26:13 - 14) that the right of performing the necessary ceremonies for one's ancestors devolved upon a son and that this fact underlay both the sense of tragedy in being sonless and the practices of levirate marriage and of adoption to avoid such disaster; (Cf. Genesis 15:2 - 3; 30:3 - 8; Deuteronomy 25:5 - 10) and that this set of ideas and customs was an integral part of the whole clan organization of early Israel.

Although Lincoln is often praised for this remark by those who oppose the mixing of religion and politics, it contains three of the most controversial ideas in American politics: that it is legitimate to invoke the name of God within the realm of political discourse; that God's existence isn't merely symbolic, but that he is always right; and that since God takes sides on certain issues, some people will be divinely justified while others will stand in opposition not only to their political opponents but to the very Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.

Lot's of people get so burned in this life by disappointment or loss or whatever that they reject any idea of religion or meaning in their lives.

From this Hellenistic theology there developed the understanding of baptism as new birth and new creation - ideas familiar to the mystery religions, but corrected by linking the interpretation with eschatology and by introducing moral obligations.

As far as I am concerned, I do not see in religion the mystery of the incarnation but the mystery of social order: it links the idea of inequality to heaven which prevents the rich person from being murdered by the poor.

By the way, we have no idea of who wrote the four Gospels, how credible or trustworthy they were, what ulterior motives they had (other than to promote their religion) or what they based their views on.

(Adventures of Ideas New York: The Free Press, 1967, 25) I will analyse the relationship of religion and philosophy by examining Whitehead's view of the nature of speculative philosophy, his view of religion, and his view of philosophy of religion.

The idea that secularism confines religion to the private realm and bars it from any relation to the public life which is to be guided purely by secularist ideologies which deny any religious view of reality2

This evolution of religion is in the main a disengagement of its own proper ideas from the adventitious notions which have crept into it by reason of the expression of its own ideas in terms of the imaginative picture of the world entertained in previous ages.