The remark «Today is their creator» could thus be read as an altogether
different statement of faith, one centered on abdication of the concept of individual authorship.5
Not exact matches
It wasn't the summer that brought an end to my doubt, but it was the summer I encountered a
different Jesus, a Jesus who requires more from me than intellectual assent and emotional allegiance; a Jesus who associated with sinners and infuriated the religious; a Jesus who broke the rules and refused to cast the first stone; a Jesus who gravitated toward sick people and crazy people, homeless people and hopeless people; a Jesus who preferred story to exposition and metaphor to syllogism; a Jesus who answered questions with more questions, and demands for proof with demands for
faith... a Jesus who healed each person differently and saved each person differently; a Jesus who had no list
of beliefs to check off, no doctrinal
statements to sign, no surefire way to tell who was «in» and who was «out»; a Jesus who loved after being betrayed, healed after being hurt, and forgave while being nailed to a tree; a Jesus who asked his disciples to do the same...
Additionally the Belief Blog has had a few articles
of interfaith events between
different Faiths, so that would be a challenge to your
statements.
«Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or
faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes,» the Harvard student group had said in a
statement, «but instead to learn and experience the history
of different cultural practices.»
These considerations add up to the judgment that while it is possible to make undialectical single
statements about general idealism, for instance, it is quite another and a more imaginative task to expose the inner core
of faith which looks like and works like idealism but is compounded
of utterly
different stuff.
There might be a «
statement of faith» but like «vision
statements» these are usually crafted on high and you'd be surprised how many people in the pews disagree with the official lines, or understand those lines to mean
different things.
Melancthon always realised that Luther's rumbustious concern with the dynamic
of faith, with preaching the Gospel, with a lived and announced theology must arouse opposition, and gladly as he accepted Luther's sincerity and indeed the importance
of a Gospel enunciated without compromise, yet he considered it was necessary also to have a conceptual summary
of what was believed, which could enable the
different viewpoints to come together in what we call today Agreed
Statements.
«Any Democrat who joins with Donald Trump's Republican Party enables his continuing assault on immigrants, women, people
of color, people
of different faiths and our shared American values,» Murphy said in a
statement this morning.
And the Senate Democrats themselves issued a
statement last month condemning Felder for sticking with the GOP, saying through a spokesman that «any Democrat who joins with Donald Trump's Republican Party enables his continuing assault on immigrants, women, people
of color, people
of different faiths and our shared American values.»
The above
statement is about like saying that we can be «somewhat confident» that the climate
of the earth without God would be
different than the climate
of the earth with God.Your observation is only a
statement of faith - based ideology, totally unscientific, and arbitrarily a priori on your part.
I'm getting another case ready for trial where I have to explain honest and consistent
statements given in good
faith to the insurance company that their lawyer is not trying to take completely out
of context to make them stand for something very
different than I originally contemplated.