Sentences with phrase «for an evil act»

«Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20 - year - old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or an adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self - defense rifle on the market punishes law - abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals,» NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said in a statement this week.

All that is needed for an evil act to occur is one person with bad intentions.

They will ultimately create an «abominatiion» but a prison of Hell awaits them where they will have an eternity of punishment for this evil act.

Not exact matches

Sure, in the extreme religion is used as limp rationale for crusades, jihads or other evil acts.

The manner in which a Christian must act is completely devoid of selfish and evil acts, with the most important rules involving showing love for all others.

But any attempt on the part of a British Christian to claim a share of responsibility for the Shoah would be, at best, a tasteless piece of play - acting; and at worst, what perverted desire to command good and evil, I wonder, might possibly motivate such a claim?

Take a look at the non-religious practices, evil creeps in, that leads to evil acts, you wonder why a man would keep 3 women locked up for 10 years in a basement, was it religion or atheism, which served the lauching pad that ended in this heinous result?

That was a very interesting read many comments caught my attention I've recently been diagnosed with Bipolar I have hallucinations and hear voices in my ear's when I hallucinate it's likes they are trying to get me thousands of them I can only describe them as dark shadows and they are trying to get me just as they are about to get me a brilliant white light surrounds me and there's three entities humanly shaped but like this brilliant white light they are also glowing this brilliant whiteness I can't understand what they are saying the only way I can explain it is emotions comfort joy love is what I feel emanating from these entities the voices I hear aren't evil telling me to do bad things to people when I get put into a mode of fear I live in a rough area of Scotland and everytime I've got into a fight something possesses me I know this for a fact as I can't control myself I'm an observer watching my family / Friends say I change they say my eyes change and I look evil I personally do think possibly through my own personal experience I» am possessed as I act out of character I've lost interest in many things I've recently I decided it's time for change I've lost my faith I've been trying to connect with God and feel his love which I used to feel the presence of the holy spirit everytime I try connect I get a feeling of abandonment I just think if I am possessed could these entities stop me connecting with «God» I can say from my heart of hearts «JESUS CHRIST HAS COME IN THE FLESH» I think it's more to do with the persons own personal fears which I have noticed my fears have changed if I had to be truthfully with myself I fear God which I know I'm not supposed to just I can't explain it I guess if you ever need a test subject I'm up for the challenge like I said I'm on journey to find myself and my travels have brought me hear I'm going to hang around for a wee while there's lots of good information to be plundered loll

Following Aquinas, Dudd - ington argues that certain acts are considered intrinsically evil, as they contravene Christian natural law, which for Duddington, is articulated through a discourse of common good and individual dignity.

His conclusion: Evil is multicausal, brings together individual and social factors (Robespierre probably would have lived out his life as a harmless provincial lawyer if not for the French Revolution), and is particular (every act of evil has its own stoEvil is multicausal, brings together individual and social factors (Robespierre probably would have lived out his life as a harmless provincial lawyer if not for the French Revolution), and is particular (every act of evil has its own stoevil has its own story).

The claim that celibacy has helped cause sexual abuse is a claim that runs utterly contrary to the evidence, and unjustly moves responsibility for despicably evil acts away from the abusers, and onto some environmental condition such as the discipline of celibacy in a priestly life.

In local communities, Hassler suggests, ancient truths abide: words retain their power to save or ruin lives, good and evil can yet be distinguished, people remain accountable for their acts, and sin, penance, and absolution are still valid coin of the realm.

He talks about the «goodness as we possess» (such as altruistic acts) and says that even if religion did no other harm, its carefully nurtured divisiveness is enough to make it «a significant force for evil in the world.»

Second, these children and infants were expressly judged and executed for the acts of their parents in direct contradiction of the basic Christian tenet of divine judgment based on an exercise of free will to choose evil or reject god.

How would it be possible for Cornelius to act in this manner if he was born a DIRTY LITTLE SINNER; inclined only to do evil, and was totally depraved?

Second, do you think it is impossible for good to come out of the result of an evil act?

As for acts of evil («active sin»), I'm convinced that not all things are the same.

As one who is profoundly constituted by the past acts of being that have made up the Christian movement, I share in responsibility for all this evil.

So, JUST from observation, even the «lovely» human beings constantly do much more evil than good, or even just act in compliance with evil systems as opposed to fighting for good.

Worldwide acts of terror conducted in the name of ISIS in June 2015, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadam, rendered it almost impossible for anyone in the UK to be unaware of ISIS and its associated evils.

Still, the case against teleological ethics may here offer this response: Granting the difference between direct and indirect applications, this yields only the familiar distinction between «act - teleology» and «rule - teleology, «3 is problematic for the following reason: Social practices or patterns of social cooperation can not be validated teleologically without a comparative assessment of the good and evil consequences differing possible systems of rules or norms (for instance, differing sets of rights) are likely, if adopted, to produce.

A perusal of the Church of the Brethren Web pages provides clear evidence that a commitment to pacifism is not limited to denominational headquarters: the 48 churches of the Northern Indiana District Conference have joined to urge «the use of nonviolent approaches and interventions» in response to the terror; the Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, Church of the Brethren has adopted a statement in which they «remain committed to walk in the Jesus way of nonviolent love, in which evil can only be overcome with redemptive acts of love»; a group of Brethren Volunteer Service Workers have issued a statement in which they «advocate the use of nonviolent means to settle disputes» and «stand opposed to the increased drive toward militarization»; on October 7 members of local Brethren churches (along with Mennonites and others) organized a peace rally at the state capitol in Harrisburg, «Sowing Seeds of Peace: Prayers and Petitions for Nonviolent Action,» which attracted over 300 people.

These two characters represent the mixture of evil and good in human beings but also, in their love for Lyra and their sacrificial acts, a powerful symbol of redemption and transformation in the face of evil.

Liberal opposition to the 1998 act and the campaign for religious freedom was solidified by the sure sign of great evil afoot, namely, the support of the cause by the «religious right.»

The reason i say the person has religion is that most people who commit this type of act try to justify the evil they do by saying it for the greater good that religion has taught them, but you never know and we wont till all the facts are in.

That is why atheism is on a higher moral ground, we understand that WE are responsible for any act, be it kindness or evil, that we perpetrate.

At all times in Israel people spoke much about evil powers, but not about one which, for longer than the purpose of temptation, was allowed to rule in God's stead; never, not even in the most deadly act of requital by God, is the bond of immediacy broken.

Also, when I discuss «if war is wrong...» by «is wrong» I mean is an act that is evil / sinful / against God's ways (right now I'm using those three all as synonymous for these purposes; though we could discuss the theological distinctions between them, they are generally the same enough when trying to explain what I mean by «is wrong»).

This is hardly an evil in Bergson's views given that the operation of such intellectual forces is also a condition for acting freely; in the complete sense.

He says, as does Luke, that the act of Judas was inspired by the devil; that is to say, it was a piece of sheer irrational evil, the motive for which was beyond their comprehension; and that is probably as much as they knew about it.

For example, granted that the evil acts of the Third Reich may have molded the moral beliefs of its citizens so that they became literally incapable of seeing the evil as evil, it is also the case that Nazism was itself possible only because of the willingness of individual Germans to have the nation's policies translated into fact.

When anger is allowed to consume the soul» to drive a man or a community beyond the bounds of justice to acts of indiscriminate violence or cruelty» it can certainly be a force for evil in the world.

It means thinking no evil in a censorious spirit of anyone, for while some acts and attitudes must be judged sinful, it was Christ's way to love the sinner even while condemning the sin.

I've known Jesus for as long as I've known my name, and still I use other people like capital to advance my own interest, still I gossip to make myself feel important, still I curse my brothers and sisters in one breath and sing praise songs in the next, still I sit in church with arms folded and cynicism coursing through my bloodstream, still I talk a big game about caring for the poor without doing much to change my own habits, still I indulge in food I'm not hungry for and jewelry I don't need, still I obsess over what people say about me on the internet, still I forget my own privilege, still I talk more than I listen and complain more than I thank, still I commit acts of evil, still I make a great commenter on Christianity and a lousy practitioner of it.

God, because he acts by persuasion within the finite realm and vet is the source of infinite potentials, is not responsible for the evil in the world.

The fifth trait follows from the above, for in all fantasy literature there is a keen recognition of forces of good and evil, a sense of right and wrong — but also a driving necessity to act on such recognition.

They admirably avoid the fundamental question that haunts Christian theology: if God who wills to be involved has created a world in which not even he can act in perfect blamelessness, how can God avoid the accusation of guilt — ultimate, primordial culpability for human suffering; culpability for that which we experience as evil?

The kingdom of God would come, to be sure, as a consequence of a decisive act of God, for only God could defeat the supernatural powers of evil which opposed his rule and only God could release the tides of spiritual power which would give the new age its character; but the kingdom of God was to be a kingdom within men's hearts and within men's world.

9 By this logic the grossest evils have been committed by men who felt no responsibility for what they did because they acted in duty - bound conformity to «the will of God».

Humans are evil and good enough to more than account for the acts attributed to either god or the devil.

In spite of the attempt of national leaders and the mass media to interpret the incident as a malicious terrorist act of disgruntled and frustrated people full of evil intensions, for many North Americans it was difficult, if not impossible, to accept it as non-religious.

If God had not acted in history, if he had remained far removed from events, or if Jesus had not instructed us to pray, and to pray hoping and expecting that God can and does help us, then the problem of evil would not take on the special significance it has for the Christian faith.

It would account for the perplexing situation in which a moral agent must intentionally will evil as part of a moral act, or allow some evil to take place through a refusal to take action.

If I really thought that we were so hopelessly evil as you say, then I could only assume that Jesus was a bit of a sentimental fool for his sacrificial act.

For this reason they understand their viewing of religious programs as both an act of protest against the «evils» of general television and an affirmation of their support for the worldview expressed within the electronic - church prograFor this reason they understand their viewing of religious programs as both an act of protest against the «evils» of general television and an affirmation of their support for the worldview expressed within the electronic - church prografor the worldview expressed within the electronic - church programs.

On the other hand, God must so act in the interests of both the self and all others as thereby to establish the cosmic order of natural law that sets the optimal limits of all other action, where by «optimal limits» I mean limits such that, were they to be set otherwise than they are, the ratio between opportunities for good and risks of evil would be less rather than more favorable than it in fact is.

The reality of evil, antisocial acts is too impervious to our wishes for such a state of affairs to continue for long.

So, long before the time of Jesus, the Jewish people had begun to look for a Messiah and an act of God to conquer evil.

To say this is also to imply that the tendency of philosophy, religion, and common sense to ascribe evil acts to the moral inferiority of the individual — summed up for all time in the extraordinary metaphor of «original sin» — is not a fundamental explanation.

For all its power, however, Voltaire's poem is a very feeble thing compared to the case for «rebellion» against «the will of God» in human suffering placed in the mouth of Ivan Karamazov by that fervently Christian novelist Dostoevsky; for, while the evils Ivan recounts to his brother Alexey are acts not of impersonal nature but of men, Dostoevsky's treatment of innocent suffering possesses a profundity of which Voltaire was never even remotely capabFor all its power, however, Voltaire's poem is a very feeble thing compared to the case for «rebellion» against «the will of God» in human suffering placed in the mouth of Ivan Karamazov by that fervently Christian novelist Dostoevsky; for, while the evils Ivan recounts to his brother Alexey are acts not of impersonal nature but of men, Dostoevsky's treatment of innocent suffering possesses a profundity of which Voltaire was never even remotely capabfor «rebellion» against «the will of God» in human suffering placed in the mouth of Ivan Karamazov by that fervently Christian novelist Dostoevsky; for, while the evils Ivan recounts to his brother Alexey are acts not of impersonal nature but of men, Dostoevsky's treatment of innocent suffering possesses a profundity of which Voltaire was never even remotely capabfor, while the evils Ivan recounts to his brother Alexey are acts not of impersonal nature but of men, Dostoevsky's treatment of innocent suffering possesses a profundity of which Voltaire was never even remotely capable.