Sentences with phrase «disagree on many»

Must disagree on this one.

«We may disagree on whether the Bible can be reconciled with same - sex marriage,» he says, «but we should be able to agree that the Bible is not homophobic and does not justify the unkind attitudes some Christians have become known for.»

My attitude toward Mohler is the same as my attitude toward Ken Ham: We can disagree on the age of the earth and still have peace with one another, for at the end of the day we can affirm together that Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ will come again.

McConnell says it's not a bad thing that pastors disagree on the details of the apocalypse.

Only One - Third of Pastors Share «Left Behind» End Times Theology Here's how 1,000 Protestant clergy disagree on the rapture, the Antichrist, and other points of eschatology.

Xenia: I have to disagree on the simple point that just because the word Christianity has the word Christ in it, that all its followers are the only ones who would be spared come judgement day.

I do respectfully disagree on one point.

I talked with him by phone, and asked him about the context of this remark, as well as the content of his sermon and the Christian's public responsibility toward Presidents with whom we disagree on crucial issues.

The only fact you seemed to disagree on was the station call letters.

so just because Owen and I disagree on gender issues doesn't mean I'd try to get him blocked or banned or censored.

Whether or not you find this position, one held for centuries by countless Christians (church fathers, saints, and regular Christian folk like me), to be valid, I trust that we can peacefully disagree on theological points and affirm others like the Triune God (albeit there are differences here as well — Athanasian Creed, anyone?)

again, whether physiological, sociological, or metaphysical, i disagree on all counts.

I will say that since my comment seemed irrelevant to you then, therefore you're either not a scientific - materialist, or you are, but you disagree on my point that you reject all religion / philosophy because they [by definition, btw] can not be proven scientifically.

For how can we be in true communion in the Eucharist if we disagree on the most basic issues of charity, the moral life, and the state of grace?

We may disagree on a lot of things, but I'm sure that we are in agreement in loving Christ and trying to change the world that is into the world that God wants it to be.

If you believe that fooling a woman's system to avoid pregnancy is against your moral code then fine, we'll agree to disagree on the evils of foiling God's plan for every coupling to produce a child, but to claim the pill is abortion is just sad.

Though Christians disagree on this issue and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future, I wonder if we've given as much energy to that upon which we agree as we have to that which divides us.

Doc... you and I will simply have to agree to disagree on the supernatural parts.

Chile specialists in the U.S. disagree on the health of Chile's democratic institutions and on the degree to which the armed forces have receded from power.

Of course we're going to disagree on some doctrine and worship style and methods of evangelism and whatever else, but writing off other churches as «old, closed - minded people that can't handle change» or «meddlin» kids that just want to go to a concert every Sunday,» is ignoring the larger picture.

It's more loving to speak the truth with those with whom we disagree on important matters.

Agree or disagree on that doctrine, at least it answers the questions you pose.

Hawking and Dawkins disagree on free will, however, but you should ignore this conflict or any atheist who says they disagree.

And, if Christians are permitted to disagree on such a basic doctrine, which side is «right» and which side is «wrong»?

So this mindset puts you add odds with a whole lot of other people, who even though they may disagree on things, may actually be able to discuss their differences in a civilized way.

@ b4 — then I'll ask: why does god (a-ssuming god exists, which point we disagree on) why does god allow suffering when god a-ssumedly has the power to stop it.

I believe this is an honest point of unity even for those who vehemently disagree on those points: whether it's your opinion that the Bible prohibits or permits homosexuality, your opinions should in no way inform your response to gay people.

Ok name something that is not part of your religion (since we disagree on it) that exists; but, is not subject to logical investigation

Then how can you say it is acceptable for a large portion of doctrine to be agreed upon by various denominations, but still disagree on others?

The purpose of this week's series is to make a case for egalitarianism, (though it should be assumed that people of goodwill and sincere faith can disagree on these issues).

We don't disagree on the value of Scripture; we disagree on exactly how to apply it.

In conclusion, I hope this post will not be used as another wedge driven between Christians who disagree on the difficult and complex issues involved.

«To have First Amendment freedoms for ourselves, we must respect those same freedoms for people with whom we disagree on important issues.»

We may disagree on how to respond to the various situations I've described, but please know that I don't speak out about this stuff because I want the Church to be more like the world.

I think the article itself points out how we still disagree on the cause of what happened.

Yes, it seems that we do indeed disagree on the topic, but I mean when you started off your very first comment with IDIOT, well I'm afraid that says a lot.

If we were to discuss them, or (better yet) collect them together, we might find that we disagree on the origin of Mr. Guy.

We seem to disagree on the possibility of solutions.

While there is a truth to Richard's intent, we also disagree on how many reactions are valid, or could even have reasonably been anticipated (and therefore the post adjusted for them).

Some believe vision is necessary for growth, while others believe vision can be a hindrance to growth... or just plain don't see any need for growth... or will even disagree on what «growth» is.

Religious people honestly disagree on many issues of public policy, and to pretend otherwise is neither realistic nor honest.

I know we disagree on this aspect of the Christian faith, Faithlessinfatima... that's ok.

One thing I strongly disagree on, however, is your statement that homosexuality is a sin.

«I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.»

Though they «disagree on God and a lot of the great issues of life,» McFarland says, he has «great respect for David Silverman.»

Another way to put it is, «How can we embody mutual honor and respect in our conversations and relationships with those with whom we may disagree on the topic of homosexuality?»

A weak case can be made for permitting abortions on the grounds that responsible people disagree on the matter.

Why do you think it is that both Muslim terrorists and Christian fundamentalists MUST use the same math and chemistry, but can disagree on almost every point about god??

Humans disagree on various things in everyday life because people have different perspectives on a wide array of topics.

To disagree on interpretation is one thing.