Sentences with phrase «limited by the freedom»

It's far from clear that Madison is saying that government is limited by the freedom the church as an organized body of thought and action.

@easymoden00b: in French law, freedom is not absolute and your freedom is limited by the freedom of others («la liberte des uns s «arrete a celle des autres», as we say).

Not exact matches

Access will be «limited to technical personnel and solely for the purpose of verifying that the new targeted production mechanism authorized by the USA FREEDOM Act is working as intended,» ODNI said in a statement.

This can only be achieved by giving your team the tools, resources and freedom to not only do their jobs, but to also push their limits.

The «zero coding» approach taken by Sharetribe Go — the very thing that makes it so easy and fast to launch your initial marketplace — inevitably limits customers» freedom to change and evolve their platforms.

As the underrated and unjustly neglected Orestes Brownson explained, our Constitution limits government «from below» by our freedom to satisfy our economic needs as material beings and «from above» by our freedom to satisfy our spiritual needs (and do our spiritual duties) as relational, religious beings.

We free persons have bodies, and our freedom is more shaped than limited by their embodiment.

You already made it clear that I am imposing limits on my freedom by erasing [painting over the drawing.

Also, if the Christians who are so gung ho about limiting the freedom of expression by non-believers were truly confident in the righteousness of their belief, they wouldn't care what someone else said.

In not a few cases, that freedom is impeded by prohibitions and persecutions, or it is limited when the Church's public presence is reduced to her charitable activities alone.»

The nature of significant freedom dictates that God's creative choices are limited by the decisions which he knows free creatures would make if created (NN 169 - 84).

The constitutional question concerns the relation between an evangelical baker's freedom to exercise his religion and how that freedom is limited by the public's interest in non-discrimination against certain minorities.

The religious objections have mostly aimed to protect God's sovereign freedom to do what He pleases with his creation, a freedom which, the dissenters argue, would be limited by the existence of universal and unbreakable laws of nature, or indeed of inevitable laws of history or human behaviour.

John Kutsko, executive director of the Society of Biblical Literature, said he was worried the Christian organisation was limiting freedom of expression on the internet by determining who can use the domain and who can not.

Freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols was limited only by the demands of love: «Take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak, lest your eating offend any brothers for whom Christ died.»

While there are still good reasons for believing that man does have some freedom of choice at his highest level of consciousness, it is a freedom within a context of very severe limits, which have been imposed upon him by his creatureliness.

But if we dispense with God - talk altogether, we may find that we have not achieved the freedom of maturity at all, but rather lost it by confining our discourse to such limits as no longer allow room for the human spirit to breathe and move.

The freedom for intellectual and spiritual exploration — and the makeup of seminary communities — might well be limited if the seminaries were more closely controlled by the churches.

This can only be done by limiting its powering motor, which is economic freedom, whether directly through regulation, or indirectly, through taxation.

Not sure i am convinced because how do you explain the verse an eye for an eye in the old testament there have always been consequences for wrong doing and stiill are for sin.If we believe the word then that word is from God not satan.As far as satan is concerned he uses violence as his tools of trade he works on our fears and is limited to robbing stealing and destroying he does nt have anything else.Violence confirms to us that there is a spiritual battle going on both on the earthly plane and in the heavenlys and the battle is over souls.The verse the kingdon of heaven is expanding and violent people take it by force is referring to that spiritual battle and as satan uses violence to expand his dominion so does God use violence to counter him.So what does he mean by that term for me i think it is saying that the the force of evil that satan uses or violence is overcome by a greater violence or force a more powerful one that being the Love of Christ.Through the cross we see that clearly portrayed and in our lives that very same battle is still happening right now for dominion be clear if we walk in the flkesh satan will have dominion over us but if we walk according to the spirit and abide in Christ we have freedom from our old nature.and satan.He can oppose us but he wont be able to influence us if we are in Christ.

Democrats propose responding by in some way limiting economic freedom through regulations or harvesting its fruits (increased wealth) through taxation.

I mean by upsetting old ones that dominate, control, and limit people in their freedoms.

«a new way of living... by upsetting old ones that dominate, control, and limit people in their freedoms.»

So not being able to impose your personal religious views onto others by law (thus limiting their freedoms) is persecution?

This perspective unmistakably reveals the unwholesomeness, not to put it more strongly, of our way of life: our obsession with sex, violence, and the pornography of «making it;» our addictive dependence on drugs, «entertainment,» and the evening news; our impatience with anything that limits our sovereign freedom of choice, especially with the constraints of marital and familial ties; our preference for «nonbinding commitments;» our third - rate educational system; our third - rate morality; our refusal to draw a distinction between right and wrong, lest we «impose» their morality on us; our reluctance to judge or be judged; our indifference to the needs of future generations, as evidence by our willingness to saddle them with a huge national debt, an overgrown arsenal of destruction, and a deteriorating environment; our unsated assumption, which underlies so much of the propaganda for unlimited abortion, that only those children born for success ought to be allowed to be born at all.

Spelled out in a lengthy lead editorial entitled «Evangelicals in the Social Struggle,» as well as in books such as Aspects of Christian Social Ethics, Henry's understanding of Christian social responsibility stressed (a) society's need for the spiritual regeneration of all men and women, (b) an interim social program of humanitarian care, ethical proclamation, and personal, structural application, and (c) a theory of limited government centering on certain «freedom rights,» e. g., the rights to public property, free speech, and so on.18 Though the shape of this social ethic thus closely parallels that of the present editorial position of Moody Monthly, it must be distinguished from its counterpart by the time period involved (it pushed others like Moody Monthly into a more active involvement in the social arena), by the intensity of its commitment to social responsibility, by the sophistication of its insight into political theory and practice, and by its willingness to offer structural critique on the American political system.

but we should by this time be aware that the full bill of human rights is a necessary accompaniment of the enjoyment of any limited range of freedom of information and ideas.

Is it possible and after reading about it i kept on thinking «i will sell to my soul for 20 carats get out shut up i will never ever sell my soul to you oh god please help me and this is continuing for a few days i am afraid that i have sold my sold to the devil have i please help and still i think god's way of allowing others to hate him us much worse even you know and can easily think think about much better punishments like rebirth after being punished for all the sins in life and i am feeling put on the sin of those who committed the unforgiviable sin (the early 0th century priests) imagine them burning in hell fire till now for 2000 years hopelessly screaming to god for help i can't belive the mercy of god are they forgiven even though commiting this sin keans going to hell for entinity thank you and congralutions i think the 7 year tribulation periodvis over in 18th century the great commect shooting and in 19th century the sun became dark for a day and moon was not visible on the earth but now satun has the domination over me those who don't belive in jesus crist i used to belive in him but now after knowing a lot in science it is getting harharder to belive in him even though i know that he exsists and i only belived in him not that he died for me in the cross and also not for eternal life and i still sin as much as i used to before but only a little reduced and i didn't accept satan as my master but what can i do because those who knowingly sin a lot and don't belive in jesus christ has to accept satan as their master because he only teaches us that even though he is evil he gives us complete freedom but thr followers of jesus and god only have freedom because they can sin only with in a limit and no more but recive their reward after their life in heaven but the followers of satun have to go to hell butbi don't want to go to hell and be ruled by the cruel tryant but still why didn't god destroy satun long way before and i think it was also Adam and eve's fault also they could have blamed satan and could have also get their punishment reduced but they didn't and today we are seeing the result

As Goodwin sees it, freedom is «the use and fulfillment of our humanity... to the outer limits fixed by the material conditions and capacity of the time.»

He showed that we can exercise freedom not just by being in control but also by consenting to our limits and surrendering to what is beyond human control.

When it is asserted that academic freedom can be limited by the truth, we are no longer talking about freedom but about license.

Paul asks rhetorically in 1 Corinthians, «Why should my freedom be limited by another's weakness?»

Of the 1990 apostolic constitution, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Curran writes: «The document theoretically limits academic freedom by truth and the common good, sees local bishops not as external to the college or university but as participants in the institution, and includes canonical provisions for those who teach theology in Catholic higher education.»

That first formulation is of particular interest: that academic freedom is limited by truth and the common good.

Liberty may mean (1) freedom to do as one pleases without social restraint, (2) freedom of thought, worship, or expression of opinion, or (3) freedom to act in social relations within limits set by the group.

At the end of the introduction I was suggesting a possible direction of research by saying that the discourse of the philosopher on freedom which stays close to the kerygma, which makes itself homologous with it, is the discourse of religion within the limits of reason alone.

The common good which limits the freedom of the individual is only another's right to freedom, so that the sphere of freedom is limited for the sake of freedom itself, and not by an alien element.

Moreover, freedom of inquiry, far from being limited by religious commitment, should be required by it.

Ironically, this understanding of freedom ends by undermining the very potentialities inherent in the act of choice, for all choice limits us: whenever we choose to do anything, we have rejected everything else.

The liberal approach is one that relies on the government's ability to limit human freedom by just taking material goods and redistributing them.

Even though Job himself recognizes God as «all - powerful» (42:2), God's «power is limited by human freedom... God's love, like all true love, operates in a world not of cause and effect but of freedom and gratuitousness.»

It is made out of a degree of freedom — not total freedom, for we are always burdened and limited by the impact of our past decisions — and responding to the empowering offer becomes itself a moment in a sequence of ever more empowering offers.

The homes and family were basically that the only spheres were women could play significant roles in early judaism.4 The dominant impression left by our early Jewish sources is of a very patriarchal society that limited women's roles and functions to the home, and severely restricted: (1) their rights of inheritance, (2) their choice of relationships, (3) their ability to pursue a religious education or fully participate in the synagogue, and (4) their freedom of movement.5

Moreover, he often says that God does this by setting limits to the range of creaturely freedom (e.g., DR 142).

The freedom principle should offer protection against the control of information and media by a limited group of citizens.

At first glance, this answer is scandalous in a liberal culture, which promises freedom for freedom's sake, limited only by external considerations of public utility and to prevent harm to others.

Conservatives, by contrast, gave priority to freedom, arguing for limited government and greater liberty.

That is, he points out that although the God of process theism «could not create beings possessing the positive capacities of human beings but lacking in libertarian freedom,» the God of traditional theism, not being limited by any metaphysical necessities, could have.

What you have is a very limited freedom to make choices which can be upset at any time by God and often is to bring about his sovereign will.

By limiting the actions of government and religious institutions, as well as the degree of contact between them, this rhetoric actually undermines religious freedom.