Sentences with phrase «not accept the teaching»

Not exact matches

I didn't do so well, but it taught me about being versatile and accepting the situation, and I was glad he did that.

I agree that academic freedom is really important; it ensures that scholarship and teaching are not limited to popular and accepted views.

A black person has to be a combination of Retarded, Dumb and Stupid to join an organization that teaches that the black race occurred because of a curse and has rules of not accepting blacks in leadership roles

As a devout Christian, I was always taught that non-Christians would go to hell because they did not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

A number of the major religions have even accepted this as you're not actually worshiping Buddha, just following his examples and teachings as to how to be a better person in life.

If not, Henry's questions will force me to accept, and to teach him, that the only proper response is to give up football for good.

So no, based on the fact prostitution is not (a) accepted globally or (b) seems ethically horrible for the person doing it — I would say «no» to them teaching in the church.

** 19:1 - 12; Note that the teaching on divorce is expanded to explain further that «All can not accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given.»

Accepting at face value the assertion that Rick Perry has a Divine calling to run for the Republican nomination, we are lead to the question of whether it was a call to Mr. Perry to become the nominee or whether it was, instead, a call to Mr. Perry to teach a lesson about how people should not take the Name in vain in order to obtain political office.

While Evangelicals greatly respect the way in which the Catholic Church has defended many historic Christian teachings against relativizing and secularizing trends, and recognize the role of the present pontiff in that important task today, they believe that some aspects of Catholic doctrine are not biblically warranted, and they do not accept any claims of infallibility made for the magisterial teachings of popes or church councils.

No problem for Jesus it was where the disciples said it is better not to be married and Jesus said he who can accept this teaching should do it.

So when Paul (inspired to say) said «I do not permit a woman to teach, or exercise authority over a man» I accept that.

The Qur «an never asks a Christian or Jew to accept it because their own scripture has become corrupt, rather they are asked to accept the Qur «an because the Qur «an claims, 1 / to confirm the teaching of the Bible, 2 / that Muhammad is foretold in the Torah and Gospel, 3 / the Qur «anic teaching makes clear what the Jews and Christians could not understand properly from their own scriptures.

They do not believe that they still are but they still accept the teaching as being from God.

Traditional Christians believe in the Old and New Testaments, but unfortunately they don't accept that God brought forth Another Testament to help resolve all this conflict about the bible's teachings.

Now as a Christian I follow the new testament, and so striving to be Christ like as a Christian I accept everyone for who they are, I love them and do not presume to know the right way for them to live their life, instead I simply open my arms to others and know that all people of all faiths are just fine it doesn't matter to me what you do with your life all that matters is the way that you do it... that was my understanding of christs teachings anyways

You who can not simply accept the Bible's teachings for what they are, in the time that they were written, and follow God, are just plain ignorant.

People who live by faith and personlaly accept that teachings of God and Jesus are a metaphor of the verb and not noun, these people are the happiest I have known through life.

He taught me to think rigorously based on real objective data and not to just accept uncritically what groups might tell me.

Furthermore, if the Christian teachings regarding salvation and necessity of accepting Jesus as your Savior is so critical, why have the vast majority of the worlds religions not contained that doctrine?

However, while he did not accept Jesus» divinity, Lennon nevertheless considered Jesus the most important human being who ever lived, and considered Jesus» ministry the most important teachings ever taught.

This implies that if you aren't not living the teachings of Christ you must not really have accepted him as your personal savior, and hence you will not be saved.

It appeals to our pride to be considered more intellectual than those simple types who don't accept its esoteric teachings.

I decided right then that the idea of «Hell» was not understood and I refused to accept without question what I was taught.

They accept the either / or of evolution and creation, and they not only accept but insist on the thesis that evolutionary teaching logically and necessarily leads to naturalism, materialism, reductionism, positivism, secularism, atheism and humanism.

Arminians can make T - shirts that say «Arminius is my homeboy... but not in such a way that I uncritically accept everything he teaches» (because we're nuanced like that).

For the faithful in Christ can not accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teach about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own» -LCB- Humani Generis 37).

Rabbi Neuberger asserted that «it's really important that one accepts that... new scientific research has taught us... that the human embryo is not as unique as we thought before... We do have to think differently about the «unique quality of human embryos» in the way that Peter Saunders is saying... The miracle of creation... may have to be explained somewhat differently... Our human brains are given to us by God... to better the life of other human beings... and if this technology can do it..., and I don't believe that anybody is going to research beyond fourteen days, then so be it, lets do it.»

Teachings about the Trinity, the Incarnation, and so forth that have not only been grounded in large portions of Scripture but have also been accepted by the vast majority of Christians in history — those we can pretty much give our lives to.

We get that, and we accept that as part of the price of not wanting to close off the teaching work of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus said would lead us into all truth.

Second, that what is taught must not conflict with the accepted facts of science, or the pupil is bound to be in trouble as he senses the disparity.

Children taught all major religions are part of God's progressive revelation to mankind, but that each person should accept a religion not because it was the faith of their parents but because he or she independently searched, researched, reflected, studied, thought, meditated, etc, and came to their own spiritual belief.

It was agreed in the Samaj that «the Vedas, the Upanishads and other ancient writings were not to be accepted as infallible guides, that reason and conscience were to be the supreme authority and the teachings of the scriptures were to be accepted only insofar as they harmonised with the light within us.»

The biggest cult is those that do not think about what the Master taught, which was not accepted then and I doubt if its accepted now.

Within schools it is accepted that it may be possible to state as a proposition that the Catholic Church teaches such and such a thing but not to insist that it is objectively true [10].

On the whole, the new rites seem to have been widely accepted, though a tremendous amount of teaching needs to accompany them, and many ministers do not find themselves well equipped to perform this work.

Of the practising Catholics, some will accept magisterial teaching, some not.

The whole point of Christianity is not to accept and affirm autonomous or self - created identities as ultimately determining of who someone is, but to define what it means to be a person in terms of Christian teaching.

Paul even thanked God that he himself had baptized none of the Corinthians save two, together with the household of Stephanas, saying, «Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach»; (I Corinthians 1:13 - 17) in the Fourth Gospel John's baptism in water is explicitly subordinated to Christ's baptism in the Holy Spirit; (John 1:33) and in the Epistle to the Hebrews «the teaching of baptisms» is put among the rudimentary principles, to be accepted, indeed, but beyond which those need to go who are pressing on «unto perfection.»

'' Once you remove man's dogmas and get back to the teachings of Jesus Christ» Which is one of man's dogmas... Men wrote the bible.You haven't removed anything, you have accepted one of man's dogmas as if it were truth.

I left Methodism upon graduation from high school, concluding that while the community had nurtured me all my life, I could not accept all of the teachings in any kind of literal way.

He or she might agree with some of the Bible's teachings if those things line up with his view of life, but he or she doesn't accept anything just because «it's in the Bible.»

It has never taught to hate gay people it has just taught that we don't agree with it and don't think it is right but are still accepting that everyone is different.

In the end, if the Bible teaches us anything, it is that each one of us is loved by God not because of how right we are but because God graciously and mercifully accepts us, sometimes despite the positions we adopt.

I certainly did not get the idea from those verses of anything like total depravity or that fallen man had to experience any kind of supernatural transformation of the will / heart in order to be able to accept God's convicting / convincing / persuading / call / drawing, instructions, teachings, commands, promises and gifts.

It is obvious that if the Bible is handled as a merely human document, then its claims may be accepted or rejected, its teachings may be in agreement or disagreement with each other, its subject may or may not be found relevant to our belief today.

For example, if a denomination declared in their doctrinal statement that the Bible teaches that all good Christians must wear pink hats and only those people who wear pink hats can indeed be true followers of Jesus, we would conclude upon reading this statement that we would never be accepted by those folks because we don't agree with this bit of ridiculous theology.

Any Catholic who rejects Catholic teaching, or who technically accepts it but minimizes it to the point of insignificance, is not a «moderate» Catholic but a dissenter, or one seeking approval from the world (a temptation Our Lord warns against)-- and should be identified as such.

An «intelligent design» curriculum based on the very premise that «intelligent design» is logic - based and not entirely «faith - based could never be accepted by those who want to teach «intelligent design» in our schools because logic compels:

To discover what was distinctive about Jesus» teaching on church discipline, we have to ask what his hearers would have regarded as new — in other words, what was it that they didn't already know and accept?