Sentences with phrase «not true doctrine»

Not exact matches

You can continue to spew out your immoral doctrine until you die, that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't make you any more pious even though you really want to feel better than everyone else because of it.

Even if you do nt believe Christianity is true, you still need to understand Christian doctrine to speak intelligently about it (now, that all as.sumes you WANT to be able to speak intelligently, and you have some reason for being here other than just to mock without understanding).

A true Pagan may expose other doctrines, but a true pagan will not join combative forces to challenge another person's faith in the form of an attack.

The true Church does not get its doctrine from those at the bottom.

The writer to this article is not a very informed or intelligent individual and anyone who judges the LDS church by the polygamist doctrine is missing out on a true and virtuous, motivating, and service oriented religion, and is ultimately rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Just because a religion heavily relies on moral teachings to support is extracurricular doctrines does not make it true to Jesus» teachings in the whole.

Most disagree with the practices, interpretation and doctrine of the other sects and many consider anyone who isn't in their particular church as «not true Christians».

True Catholic doctrine includes the Ten Commandments, which includes you shall not steal, bear false witness, nor covet your neighbor's house or property, among others (Exodus 20:1 - 17).

The main trouble with the doctrine of reincarnation is that it does not seem to be true to the facts.

True, the concepts, and the terms used to express them, are of great importance, especially for the later history of doctrine; and we are not likely to minimize them if we view New Testament theology as Book One or perhaps Chapter One in the History of Christian Ddoctrine; and we are not likely to minimize them if we view New Testament theology as Book One or perhaps Chapter One in the History of Christian DoctrineDoctrine.

My definition of «church» has definitely changed over the years, and I find myself leaning more and more toward the idea that the true bride of Christ is a group of living breathing people — not a building, not an organization, not a set of doctrines, etc. — just people who continue on the path toward faith in God.

In a true democracy, a doctrine of pluralism may be a way of safeguarding the rights of minorities; in a hierarchy, however, where authority proceeds from a Will not constituted by any part of the population, «pluralism» is often a code word for the project of giving political power the ascendancy over legitimate authority.

While part of what you said is quite true, I would contend that Jesus didn't have a great sense of humor, since it is from what Jesus supposedly said that the whole doctrine of hell came about, as well as some ther things he said that I would contend is fairly bad advice.

One of the creative process philosophers, Charles Hartshorne, states in the beginning of Man's Vision of God his conviction that «a magnificent intellectual content — far surpassing that of such systems as Thomism, Spinozism, German idealism, positivism (old or new) is implicit in the religious faith most briefly expressed in the three words, God is love».1 If this be true what is needed is not the discarding of metaphysics but the exploration of this new possibility in the doctrine of God's being.

Those who adhere to the true doctrines of Christ often end up poor because they're sacrificing themselves for others, something that other individuals do not often do.

For him this doctrine is not only the fundamental discriminator whereby one discerns the «true Christian» but also the universal teaching of the Christian church — at least prior to the rise of biblical criticism.

I think we agree on the fact that it is by faith that all are saved i have no problem with that and its in that that there is unity.You find within any christian modern church law can be mixed with Grace that is not peculiar to any domination maybe it is more extreme in some.Where there are believers there are works of the flesh such as pride and self reliance.I was thinking today the word says if we believe in our hearts and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord then you shall be saved.Its not a hard doctrine to believe thats in its basic form.The seventh day have tacked on to that belief adherence to the sabbath that is sadly how denominations spring up.In the anglican church we still recite the apostles creed how many church still do that today as a basis for there faith in Jesus Christ.Your statement that some are saved is just as true to those who go to modern christian churchs who say they are christian but walk according to the flesh..

This is not to say that all doctrines, rites, and social organizations are equally true or serve equally well as channels for the ultimate.

Still, we honor those, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, who were able even without the blessing of Jewish or Christian faith to develop «positive rational doctrines of what life ought to be»» doctrines that (while not free of error) contain much that is profoundly true.

For it is not true, as a superficial view assumes, that the doctrine of the atonement is the qualitative difference between paganism and Christianity.

Assuming that among protestants Lutheranism is the true doctrine, (Not Calvinism or Arminianism)

The vocation of St. John as the apostle of the Divinity of Christ's one person has fed and powered the true development of the doctrine of the Church at all times, not least in the first centuries in which the true doctrine of both the divinity and the humanity are hammered out in great Councils, and the concepts are refined in the fires of contrary heresy against either the full Divinity or the full Humanity of Christ.

Fraudulent religious leaders often peddle false doctrine, but some of them also traffic in true doctrines by which they have not personally been transformed.

That does not mean that the idea of Purgatory is necessarily true and it must be assessed in the light of scripture as a whole and, in my view, there's simply not enough biblical support to affirm it as an established doctrine.

We allow for opinion on some doctines, and will not recognize as equal or even a true teaching other doctrines.

True, it goes without saying that if a man can not in conscience accept the doctrine of the Church as the norm of his faith, this must be respected by others, whether they think his view right or not; and the Church, too, must respect such a conviction and may not suppress it by social pressures or prevent its expression.

Praise God for Chrisitans who receive the true gospel, not religious traditions and doctrines, but the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thus, if it is true, as has been claimed, that the idea of Christendom and the doctrines of Christian orthodoxy, were not at all what the historical Jesus had in mind when he spoke of the Kingdom of God, we should not be surprised if the continuing stream of cultural influence which he was so instrumental in re-directing should in the future manifest itself in ways very different from the conventional Christianity it later became for a period.

The issue is that even someone who believes in the true doctrine can nevertheless be a disbeliever when he doesn't overcome the lust of his body by the faith and doesn't love God and his neighbour through God's releasing power.

I am convinced not only that this is true, but also that our attempts at stating an acceptable doctrine of Christ have often failed largely because we have lost sight of this primacy.

There are people who spend their entire lives studying Greek mythologies and other theology doctrines (with the notation that most people who study mythologies don't actually believe the fantasy is true).

That this omission had consequences in the life of the Church is apparent from the diversity of doctrines — not all of which can possibly be true — that have been drawn from Paul's words.

This is no late development in Christian reflection; it might be truer to say that such an identification can not bear much reflection — which is one reason for the later elaboration of the doctrine of the Trinity.

I don't deny that wrong decisions were made at probably all of the councils at some point, but of the councils that truly shaped Christianity, the seven ecumenical councils, while they are ridden with strife and political maneuvering as well as true Christian devotion and worship, I believe that most of what they decided in terms of doctrine is not wrong.

We can say that it is not true, as suggested Erik Peterson, that the doctrine of the Trinity has made impossible any political theology.15 But it continues to resist direct deductions of political and economical systems from the Trinity even in its Boffian notion.

Hence, to deal properly with Hegel, whose organismic understanding of reality is grounded in the analysis of macroscopic organisms, the true point of comparison should be the Whiteheadian notion of a society, not the doctrine of actual entities.

You don't know God you have no understanding of the nature of God and your past education is not relevant to the opinions you are voicing because to those that really know you are extremely lacking in any area of true Bible doctrine.

If teachers of status, whether priests or layfolk, do not accept themselves and do not teach to others the doctrine of life and human goodness that Jesus taught on earth and still teaches in His Church, they will not form within others the true identity of the real, the living Jesus.

But if this is true, then it can not now separate its doctrines of God, Christ, Church, and Faith from the historical development of human consciousness and the fact of cosmic evolution.

So true... the viewpoint is very narrow when it comes to Christian doctrine — and even questioning some of the obvious basic problems can cause one a type of hell (even it does or does not exist)-- ostracization.

Because I still believe mentally that the bible is true, even though emotionally I do not like some of the doctrines.

My current ministry is taking care of widows and orphans, ministering to those with drug & alcohol problems — in other words doing what the true God would want; not going after the civil rights of millions of Americans — we need to keep church separated from hate — and stop trying to deny civil rights based on perceived religious doctrine.

Timothy isn't presenting LDS doctrine in a true light.

The doctrine is that will, will not, and may - or - may - not form an exhaustive trichotomy; whichever one is true, the other two are false.

True development of doctrine, therefore, always operates within the analogy of faith; it operates, as Cardinal Ratzinger has noted, in a diachronic and not simply a synchronic sense.

The principles of the science of theology are given in the articles of the Creed and in Sacred Scripture and they are known by us through faith, not through philosophical reasoning: you can not, by unaided reason, conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity is true, for example.

A True Believer reads the scriptures or their foundational texts as is, no context except their own, and condemns those who don't agree with * their * Actual True And Nonnegotiable Doctrine.

Oh, they accepted the NT canon, and also the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as some other things, but they always say if it's not in the Bible, then it's not true.

To gain this true knowledge could not be merely a matter of rational assent to the doctrine that Atman is Brahman.

The group with the most fasting wins???? And if that be true what might that say about the doctrine of Gods will can not be thwarted.