Sentences with phrase «not against society»

Corresponding to this somewhat indefinite and higher conscience there is inevitably a more profound sense of guilt, stemming from the recognition of sin not against society but against God.

Not exact matches

But then again, our society is still crawling slowly towards truly embracing the notion, enunciated most forcefully by John Stuart Mill, that we shouldn't have rules against behaviour that doesn't harm anyone, and that, hence, what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors is nobody else's business.

«Given that the recession has been so long, and given that the growth is not strong enough to create real employment, the social malaise is so wide that... certainly a very large part of the society is afraid of the future, is angry, is against the people that have managed the country in the last decades,» Passera, who was an independent minister under the Mario Monti government, said Thursday.

The firm may not be willing to tell you, but your state society of CPAs can direct you to the appropriate state agency, which can tell you whether any formal complaints have been lodged against the firm, by either clients or creditors.

There's going to be a backlash, eventually, against companies that want to operate here but don't want any responsibility for how we run our society and how we finance our values.

«Do something to really connect back with society» and don't «be known as the companies that pushed back against what was right for the world.»

When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self - sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.

I'm not saying it should be today — just that it's a reminder that clearly we as a society have run up against some of these wealth distribution outcomes before.

Although compassionate in its intent to allow those who came to the United States unlawfully as children and through no fault of their own to begin the process of integrating legally into United States society, it contributes to the current crisis at the border by further signaling United States policy not to enforce its immigration laws against low priority targets.

In Niebuhr's memorable typology, the «Christ against culture» position is generally associated with the anabaptists, Tolstoyans, and various sects that position themselves as communal alternatives to the larger society, based of course not on ethnic distinctives but on fidelity to the gospel.

I maintain that all kinds of violence are the same the violence of the soldier who kills, the revolutionary who assassinates; it is true also of economic violence — the violence of the privileged proprietor against his workers, of the «haves» against the «have - nots»; the violence done in international economic relations between our societies and those of the third world; the violence done through powerful corporations, which exploit the resources of a country that is unable to defend itself [Violence (Seabury, 1969), p. 97].

Any society, Christian or not, has both a sacred sphere and a profane sphere, a sphere in which love and obligation determine who gets what as against the sphere in which prudence and courage do so.

They saw that abortion was violence against women by a society who did not value women.

Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society (NSS) says: «We welcome the government's robust response to the specific allegations against schools in Birmingham, but it has a long way to go before we can be confident that children's education isn't being compromised by groups with a religious agenda.

There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority, that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.»

«It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.

Sin is not merely overt transgressions against society such as murder, theft, or adultery; it appears more often in the subtler forms of the killing of personality by anger and unkindness; the stealing of reputation by gossip or of opportunities by self - seeking; the marring of thoughts by attention to the lustful or the obscene.

And this is true not only of physical violence — the violence of the soldier who kills, the policeman who bludgeons, the rebel who commits arson, the revolutionary who assassinates; it is true also of economic violence — the violence of the privileged proprietor against his workers, of the «haves» against the «have - nots»; the violence done in international economic relations between our own societies and those of the Third World; the violence done through powerful corporations which exploit the resources of a country that is unable to defend itself.

Multiply this many millionfold, and what results is a society in which there is not only continual clash between human wills but a continual state of rebellion against God.

On the other hand such personalism iuris divini, which despite its importance can not here be proved theologically, is a principle of resistance against the well - known dangers and shortcomings of democracy in large societies where self - government by the people, for example, by plebiscite is no longer possible and the representation which takes its place be - comes more and moe autonomous.

In a society that delights in caring about and preaching against the million splinters in everyone else's eyes and we can't even see the log in our own.

I do not suggest that the rights of a particular tree or mountain, field or stream will always prevail, any more than the wants of a particular person can always be honored when they stand against the needs of a larger society.

I know that John Paul II takes a dimmer view of American society than would totally gladden my heart; and I must confess that I have felt a certain cold wind at my back as I listened to him caution people in Latin America who do not even yet own shoes against falling into the trap of materialism.

S.e.x.u.a.l.i.s.m is a socal oreintation the same way religion is a socially oreintated construct, Without society we could not oreintate our life upon or against a model of constructivism therefore social oreintations are the mainframes of individualities!

Jesus reveals a free God, who is uncoopted and uncontained by those identified with religion This God is free to hear the cry of the outcasts against the guardians of religious society This God is not under the power of Brahman but is free to hear ones against Brahmans and other upper castes and side with the Dalits, who are ousted from the Temples and who are denied the right to study the Scriptures.28

No, I don't do those things because of the fear of punishment personally, but also agree with laws against those things because it hurts the society in which i belong, and would to not have those things happen to me.

A good example is Habakkuk's presentation of a dialogue between the prophet and God — the prophet's first complaint is against the sins of Judean society and God explains that he will be using the evils of the invading Chaldeans to punish Judea; the prophet responds by complaining about the evils of the Chaldeans which God then assures will not go unpunished — that they tyranny itself will lead to it's own punishments and that the punishment for Judea's sins is itself redemptive and God assures that he will be able to provide salvation.

If you say «Society decides right or wrong» then you are saying that Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus Christ, Gandhi are the most evil people ever, because they pointed out they saw wrong in society and fought (not violently) agaiSociety decides right or wrong» then you are saying that Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus Christ, Gandhi are the most evil people ever, because they pointed out they saw wrong in society and fought (not violently) agaisociety and fought (not violently) against it.

In the struggle against such a system, what is being proposed as an alternative is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be state capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation.

Modern society does not have much in the way of positive feedback for those who go against the religious grain, so negative feedback is more prevalent than not.

Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and the state, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied»... (no. 35).

George N. Boyd argues against the traditional position of the opponents of capital punishment that no crime ever «deserves» the death penalty, and suggests that the debate is not over what murderers deserve, but rather about how society should express and defend its fundamental values.

What should be a community of accepting and loyal love extending its life to all, is in part a community divided against itself, sometimes adding to, if not blessing, the existing divisions in society and unable, therefore, to give a convincing witness to the faith by which it lives.

So, in other words, a Godless society would NOT be any better than one with a God under which people with free will turn against and act like... what... Atheists?

Last but not least, Christian theology must provide a firmer foundation for care and justice, for standing against sexual and family violence, for healing the violated and for changing society's values and structures.

but the woman or our society keep the war against Rome going for 1000 years then another 1000 when England took over the assault, their valiant struggle did not end until Christendom put are woman to the subservient side of the coin, and the dark ages followed, my point is your right men and woman can not do the same things men destroy, women create.

Gandhi was not against technology, but he wanted technology which was appropriate to the organic character of society and the spiritual character of the human person.

If you steal, commit adultery, etc. you sin against only yourself and those immediately involved, not a whole society.

Its hard not to be skeptical of the new leader of an organization that has committed unmitigated crimes against humanity, especially children who are amongst the weakest in any society.

For example, a man even after committing the most terrible and atrocious of crimes against humanity remains a man biologically; he is still a «rational animal» — i.e., essentially distinct from an animal — but within the context of society, he does not belong.

There is no acknowledgment that, in the view of many, a discrimination - free society is one that does not discriminate for or against people on the basis of their race or gender, as quotas certainly do.

But this positive definition is situated within the context of aid to support the struggle against poverty or as a response to needs not covered by society.

Bearing false witness against a Church of Christ, especially in a society that almost requires you to hate religion and live life in a sinful fashion, wouldn't be too difficult for most.

Religiously it was jihad against evil society and the infidels in America, an interpretation that was not accepted by the majority of Islamic leaders, theologians, and communities the world over.

The model is of an unreservedly capitalist economy, its society highly efficient and meritocratic, its polity authoritarian and not overly concerned with the rights of individuals over against the collectivity.

Sifton never mentions any of this, but Niebuhr's strident opposition to Roosevelt's preparations for war helps us to grasp the revulsion against war that his generation felt after World War I. Even for Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society did not lead straight to the interventionism of 1940; he had had to struggle for eight years to get there.

So, you wouldn't say a word against any parent raising their kids to be racist, anti-Semitic, woman - beaters, or something else you'd consider problematic for their fitting in with society later in life?

In this is rooted their sense of sin, not simply as ordinary infraction of the moral standards of a primitive society, but as rebellion against God and an affront to his holiness.

He felt that while the Gays and Lesbians now have the protections against being thrown out of their homes and fired by their employers they did not continue the fight for those who are transgendered in society.

But I am not against education for women; societies in third world countries where women and girls marry young are the most impoverished, uneducated, countries, with children that are cared for by nobody.