Sentences with phrase «not apologetic»

If you've been out of work because you raised a family, continued your education, cared for a sick family member or recovered from an injury, be sure your tone is not apologetic.

Not apologetic and rude.

Can be very accomodative and tolarent but not apologetic about my beliefs and principles.

need a rich man for funIf you are fat say so in a way that is positive and not apologetic.

Amorusa owns it, but she's not apologetic about who she is and where she's come from.

Brown is not apologetic about his wide horizons, eclectic curiosity or bold predictions.

«I am not apologetic about the fact that the bill has been changed on its way through the House,» he told the Commons.

And we are not apologetic about that,» Mr Jackson said in the Brong Ahafo Region on Thursday, 27 April.

Cable was quite content that his comments on the dangers of creating a housing bubble had «ruffled a few feathers - I'm not apologetic about it.»

This book is not an apologetic — an attempt to defend Christianity and to persuade his readers of the truth of what underlies that religion.

This is not an apologetic for either side; it is hoped that this post will contribute to the vital discussion of this difficult passage.

Trump wasn't apologetic and denied he was racist, said the confidant, who wasn't authorized to disclose a private conversation and spoke on condition of anonymity.

It seems as if theologians give their time these days to writing apologies (not apologetics) for such current social fads as neo-Marxism and transactional analysis.

Not exact matches

That won't be easy to change, and it won't be solved by papering the world with apologetic newspaper ads.

So I made the call and was very apologetic and sincere, letting them know it wasn't them, it was me.

I also expected the Fed to initiate liftoff earlier in the year, and not sneak in one, apologetic rate hike in mid-December.

Christian apologetics indeed, I do not accept your apologies, LOL.

Econ301 Now you have got L4H started you are going to get whole litany of Christian apologetics and of course L4H will not apologise for boring you to distraction.

Of course, the fact that I was well read in the apologetics against Mormonism, didn't help their cause either.

She may not have been indoctrinated / brainwashed by someone within her household, but she didn't form these beliefs about Christianity in a vacuum where no one around her was attempting to convince her to believe, and she was just studying various religious texts until she happened on the bible and other apologetics.

Think of it this way: For all that «God» is in the title, God and Man at Yale is not a particularly religious book, and it certainly is not a volume of Catholic apologetics or exegesis.

I do not believe all the apologetics concerning various details.

It's about as credible as any other apologetic nonsense, which is to say not at all.

The picture of the Church that emerged was distorted by this apologetic context — too much emphasis was being given to points that were disputed (the authority of the pope, for example) and not enough given to other important points (such as the nature of the local churches).

And I can say that because, especially back then, back in the «90s apologetics books didn't sell.

That's the point I was gesturing at with my comment about the different tasks of apologetics and dogmatics: Apologetics has its place, but it should not be allowed to distortapologetics and dogmatics: Apologetics has its place, but it should not be allowed to distortApologetics has its place, but it should not be allowed to distort dogmatics.

In my review, I argued that the needs of apologetics ought not drive the development of dogmatic theology.

The movie is not a heavy - handed commentary on supernatural apologetics but it does challenge the viewer to consider that there is so much we don't know, and so much more for all of us to learn.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

He didn't hand out too many tomes of apologetics Or colour - coded maps with seven easy steps to proper beliefs.

The revelational rap against apologetic theology is that it either engages in a sellout to the «world» (the self - disclosure of God being so utterly relativized by human wisdom that Christians are unable to tell atheists anything that they don't already know), or it is an exercise in various intellectual imperialisms, such as: «We can prove the existence of God» or «If human culture really understood itself, it would find that it is striving toward that which we already have.»

As if the seeming predestinarian «logic» of revelational theology (so fundamentally alien to the apologetic mindset) were not problem enough, there is the harsh apocalypticism into which Jesus is reported to have so deeply dipped his hands.

If you undermine their authority (to take at face value and not resort to «they were deluded and scapegoating»), aren't you undermining perhaps the most significant apologetic we have to know that the resurrection really happened?

(Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35) In the next generation Ezekiel tried another apologetic: granting both that the command to sacrifice children was in the Law, as it obviously was, and that Yahweh was responsible for its presence there, he asserted none the less that; Yahweh had given «statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live,» for the ultimate purpose of punishing them with such desolation that they might recognize the divine hand in their tragedy.

I'm not sure... I just don't know if it's a good apologetic argument (maybe it is!).

When Christians searched the Old Testament for texts bearing on the Resurrection they would be struck by Psalm 16:10: «Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy loyal servant suffer corruption», This prophecy was a powerful weapon in the armory of Christian apologetic.

Strikingly, our catechists these days often just use apologetics tracts as their textbooks for catechism class, giving the faithful mere leftovers of what was actually prepared for others who do not yet share our faith.

Rather than have recourse to an unproductive apologetics when faced with contemporary atheism, we ought to concern ourselves with weeding out from Christianity what is not authentic, should even be grateful to Marx's critique of religion for the purifying function which it performs in this way.

I necessarily had to take a step back and defend my overall worldview, but not for the sake of apologetics, but to explain why I hold to the theology of human evil that I do.

This is not to say that we have no need for apologetics and doctrine.

Sometimes they are apologetic about not «attending church» and I am able to affirm and encourage them that I don't «attend church» either, but am able to follow Jesus in a more relational way just as they are.

The apologetic task is to test for truth, not necessarily to vanquish opponents.

If I've learned anything over the past few years it's been that when the rains come down and the floods come up, when doubt and frustration whip like wind against my faith, all the apologetics in the world can't ground me like the simple, yet profoundly challenging teachings of Jesus Christ.

Vic Well if you believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old then don't bother going to a reputable science site stick with apologetic sites, they will bolster your vast knowledge of well, nothing.

So our apologetic here isn't answering the question, «Does God exist?»

And today, rather than playing defense, American seminaries like Mundelein in Chicago are exploring how the Church might go on offense — not in an offensive way, but by developing new models of a 21st - century apologetics that invites disenchanted post-moderns to experience the divine mercy and come to know the truths to which that experience leads.

That Word was not open to rational investigation, and classical apologetics was not just useless, it was a betrayal of the sovereignty of the Word which allows no space for such reflection.

I thus conclude, within the oversimplification which is excusable for this kind of capsule argument, that apologetics or evangelism should not be thought of as constituting a distinctive mode of theological discourse for which we would need a specific definition of the place of the Bible.

Other tasks, too, besides interpreting Scripture face theologians, tasks both intramural (dealing with the church) and extramural (dialoguing with the world)- tasks of phenomenological analysis of theologies past and present and of apologetics, philosophical, evangelistic, and defensive - but these can not be spoken of here either.

This, to my mind, not only represents very movingly the anthropological presupposition of all authentic soteriology, but exemplifies the apologetic stance for which we must aim in our proclamation of «gospel» in our time and place.