Sentences with phrase «change of doctrine»

The ultimate «toleration» of usury by the Church of Rome is often, but quite falsely actually, quoted by modern critics as a change of doctrine.

they are slow to change... and very careful in changes of doctrine because it's not a great idea to jump in on the flavor of the week... until it is fully vetted.

Not exact matches

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as «1» due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves «7» because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind.

Cardinal Müller: Not even an ecumenical council can change the doctrine of the Church, because her Founder, Jesus Christ, entrusted the faithful preservation of his teachings and doctrine to the apostles and their successors.

The document criticizes «doctrinal or disciplinary security,» «an obsession with the law,» «punctilious concern for... doctrine,» «dogmatism,» «hiding behind rules and regulations,» and «a rigid resistance to change,» while reprimanding those who «give excessive importance to certain rules,» overemphasize «ecclesial rules,» believe that «doctrine... is a closed system,» «feel superior to others because they observe certain rules,» have «an answer for every question,» wish to «exercise a strict supervision over others» lives,» «long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance,» believe that «we give glory to God... simply by following certain ethical norms,» and «look down on others like heartless judges, lording it over them and always trying to teach them lessons.»

Others are even more adamant, however, in saying that the Church can not change a practice that is based on the doctrine of Jesus, the apostles, and centuries of authoritative teaching.

No appeals to the great cathedral of Christian doctrine are going to change that.

Even so, Schickel has been criticized in the past for abetting liberalism via relativism and lack of commitment, an argument he counters by appealing to the distinction between doctrine, which is permanent, and discipline (ritual, language, and arts), which changes with the times.

26, page 635... Now, in all fairness, their has been a Public Relations campaign recently to remove the «cursed» references to Blacks in the ever changing Book of Mormon / and Covenants and Doctrines — «specially since they have a chance to rule the world through Mitt Romney (gggrandson of one of the LDS church founders, Parley Pratt arrested for murder and treason for attacking and killing members of an army battalion)... Don't look in up in Wikipedia — the Mormons have deleted that part of Pratt's history.

Naomi Klein, in her book Shock Doctrine, suggests that governments will use this for selfish ends, i.e.: create the crisis to change the mind of the public.

The doctrine of internal relations which underlies the process of concrescence makes it impossible to attribute change to any actual entity» (PR 92).

I now believe it does a tremendous disservice to honorable people who are faithful believers to place on them the additional burden of guilt, shame and magnified suffering that comes from the kind of doctrine that promotes (sells) prayer as a magic talisman which will somehow change God's mind, alter physical circumstance, and fix intractable problems — if only the one praying has enough faith or asks in the right way or lives a holy enough life or professes Jesus enough or waits patiently or never gives up or any of a hundred different gotchas that can be called upon to justify the lack of an affirmative answer.

Thus far, it seems that the changes required of the process doctrine of God, while significant, are fairly minor.

Ker then turns to the question of the development of doctrine: the hermeneutic of change in continuity.

That does not change the central point regarding the Doctrine of Grace.

Along with the logical subject - predicate paradigm, the related metaphysical doctrine of enduring substratum with changing attributes is also to be rejected in favor of a conception of process evolving towards more and more interconnection between apparently separate existents.

I think it would be helpful to us all if you cited some of this «weight of exegesis» that is leading you to change your position on these doctrines.

The general doctrine of God developed in Process and Reality was implicit in Religion in the Making, but at two points substantive changes have occurred.

My definition of «church» has definitely changed over the years, and I find myself leaning more and more toward the idea that the true bride of Christ is a group of living breathing people — not a building, not an organization, not a set of doctrines, etc. — just people who continue on the path toward faith in God.

The interest for us in this doctrine is primarily that it illustrates further the importance and persistence of the questions raised by the human experiences of change and of dependence.

Hey Jeremy I am probably way behind the eight ball, but I hope these questions do not reflect a change in the more basic doctrines of the Christian faith.

prayer is a waste of time and energy, it changes nothing, and your own beliefs and doctrines confirm that.

Does this make sense in the light of the doctrine that in God there is no element of contingency or change?

Without losing ontological Process doctrine of identity, God undergoes God is compatible growth in God's knowledge and with a Biblical therewith change in God's description of God «being.»

Slightly improved doctrines about the oppressed, about women, about the body, about community, or about the whole of creation will not change the church much.

It is demonstrably false historically: There is constant material change through the history of doctrine.

It is fundamental to the metaphysical doctrine of the philosophy of organism, that the notion of an actual entity as the unchanging subject of change is completely abandoned No thinker thinks twice; and, to put the matter more generally, no subject experiences twice.

For here it is a matter of the application of the ultimate fundamental attitudes and doctrines of the Gospel to the unimaginable multiplicity of situations in human life which, moreover, are involved in a perpetual historical flux and change.

For life within the Catholic Church, the stumbling - block as regards change in the Church's doctrine is not so much the question of defined dogmas as other doctrines of the Church in dogmatic and moral theology which are taught authoritatively but which in principle can not count as defined doctrines of faith or as irreformable dogma.

This brings us to the question of change and immutability in the Church's doctrine.

There is a place for the greening of theology that is the correcting of long - held wrong doctrines, the call for changes in action, and reflection on all sorts of issues in light of the crisis we face.

There is a second consequence of the doctrine of the absoluteness of God over against all temporality and change.

It follows that the principles of change and permanence for this kind of ecclesiastical law are different from those which govern the Church's doctrine of faith.

We are concerned with the change which the Church itself actively undertakes in its law and doctrine, and in which the Church changes itself, and is not merely subjected to change, though of course both sets of changes mutually affect one another.

your understanding of the change process is very simplistic, because your mind is not open, you specifically believe already in the traditional doctrines, Dogmas as shown in thousands of years of history evolves, and the need for input variables, meaning the diversity of religious belief is necessay because nature through his will is requiring this to happen, we are being educated by God in the events of history.In the past when there was no humans yet Gods will is directly manifisted in nature, with our coming and education through history, we gradually takes the responsibilty of implementing the will.Your complaint on your perception of abuse is just part of the complex process of educating us through experience.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church.

The linkage of man with an animal heritage on grounds of variation dictated simply by his response to environmental changes introduced a dominance of physical influences which could in no way be squared with the Christian doctrine of man.

The proof of panthrotheistic was the establishment of the monotheistic religion, Jesus Christ was the God whose religion had convinced the roman emperor to decree that the Roman Empire had to adapt Christianity as it's official religion, paving the way for science to grow or proliferate and in the church era, because of the fast growth of science in the Christian world.But we are now at the crossroad of change, Christian doctrine is now in conflict with modern science, so it has to evolve to panthrotheism, the future religion

There really is change in the Church, therefore, change which is different in nature and magnitude according to whether it concerns style of life, law, dogma or non-defined but authentic doctrine.

It confronts the doctrine of the Church with all the new questions and insights produced by the changing historical situation of the human spirit.

Even slight changes in the philosophy entail new estimations of the doctrine.

According to the document «Towards Common Witness» some of the characteristics which distinguish proselytism from Christian witness are: unfair criticism of caricaturing of the doctrines, beliefs and practices of another church; presenting one's church or confession as «the true church»; the use of humanitarian aid, educational opportunities or moral and psychological pressure, to induce people to change their affiliation; exploiting people's loneliness, even disillusionment with their own church in order to «convert» them.

Changing political circumstances altered political ideals over the next seventy years, such that pro-Catholic thinkers such as Félicité de Lamennais gradually began to endorse liberalism's doctrine of religious liberty as a way of providing safe harbor for the Church's social influence within a French state that was no longer officially Catholic.

In a sense, the theology of Christian Science takes with radical seriousness the classic Christian doctrine of sin and what the change «from sin to holiness» must include.

Leclerc writes: «The Aristotelian doctrine is that the physical existent, by virtue of its inherent activity, is necessarily involved in internal change, while... the denial of internal change in matter is the one feature of the modern conception of matter which has persisted until this century» (NPE 257f.).

(2) The Nixon - Graham doctrine assumes that a religious change of heart, such as occurs in an individual conversion, would cure men of all sin.

Gods will is for us humans today to evolved to a level of conciousness that will prepare us for the challenges of our future survival, Scientists now predicts of hardships in the future due to over population and changes to the natural environment.and that is happening now with activists through out the world are reminding us of protecting nature.That is why we need a phsychological revolution to hasten the evolution of consciousness that will address the problems.Ideological and philosophical enlightenment had the past great minds to develop ideas and belief because God sent them to reality in their times.Abraham, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, and many other religious leaders to teach humanity the doctrines that God willed to be appropriate and applicable in those periods of their existence, Also great philosophers in another dimension of social involvement were born to interprete and connect philosophically as the second element of our conscience, Kant, Marx and countless of them also were born.To complete the triangular structure or dimension of our conscience is knowledge.

Doesn't change the reality of the doctrine of election.

Rather than finding God in institutions or in doctrine, Christians should encounter him and engage in the Kingdom of God by being on the forefront of social change.

On the other hand, if his desire was to change more than words, or to change them in some significant and deeper way, it is hard to see how he could have avoided changes in the sense and meaning of the doctrines set forth.