Sentences with phrase «not use the doctrine»

Because of this heightened duty of care, the court ruled that the Buyer's Representative could not use the doctrine of caveat emptor as a defense to the Buyer's allegations.

Not exact matches

Which Gasoline Corporations Usually do not Use Ethanolthe real problem with «global warming» hysteria has caused big issues in other spots over the boards and perhaps performs into why we have been in Iraq!back again during the eighties the global warming lunatics released their own individual doctrine which went similar to this.

They don't have doctrines that they use to justify their behavior or to condemn other people.»

The Hebrew Scriptures can be used for our doctrines just as the NT.

If you are not a believer in their doctrines it is illogical to use those doctrines as a justification for a belief, in this case abortion.

So Catholic doctrine is not so much about pushing people to have kids but demanding they use a «hit and miss» technique rather than a «sure fire» technique, when the people DO N'T wan na have kids?

The doctrine they confess does not matter, they use their religiuos beliefs only to gain votes, or not?

Please note that Baer, Capizzi, and other proponents of just war doctrine are not making a case for any specific use of lethal power.

They use Christian doctrine to pass laws that can tend to isolate those «not like them».

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.

if u used to teach such sadistic doctrines I wonder why you won't run from your own shadow!

Wills» Syllabus errorum leaves virtually no room for what used to be the liberal understanding of the development of Catholic doctrine; as Wills surely understands, false doctrines are not said to «develop.»

They were not puppets in His hand, compelled to do His will without moral responsibility for their deed, but chosen because He saw that the very iniquity of their heart would lead them to the course that He could use (Rowley, Doctrine of Election, p. 40 - 41)

The Fox network could not have existed three decades ago because the Federal Communications Commission still used the Fairness Doctrine and equal time rules to require stations to provide time — even free time — to air all sides of issues of public importance.

Yes, as important as theology and doctrine is, it can not be used to beat someone over the head.

The doctrine can (theoretically) have teeth at several points: refusal to obey an unjust order, «selective conscientious objection» when called to serve an unjust cause, suing for peace when one can not win without using unjust means, prosecuting a war crime.

For that reason only we find now the ruling powers are in the hands of secular non religious ones... The conference above stated that the secular regimes in the West had used the indifference between religions, branches, doctrines by creating «Fitnah» said to be harder than killing... because you get all those with Fitnah to fight among them selves... beside establishing and supporting terrorist groups to get the area unstable far from investment and development environment that has caused the mass immigration of the capital heads, professions and skilled labour hands from their countries to the west and be treated as garbage at countries that they do not belong to whether as culture, race or religion....

Credence must be given to the writer in one area though in that Christendom has failed in some ways to properly «speak» or represent Christ from their pulpits and daily walk; some spew out false doctrine and self - serving «religiosity» that one can not be surprised that the Enemy (Satan) is now using those same words and actions to accuse them through writers such as we see here.

(1 Corinthians 6:9 - 11) «But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.»

I am not positive, but from what I understand, the doctrine of inspiration at its core is generally used to define the nature of Scripture as God's Word.

Some sociological studies of how the doctrine of karma is actually used in daily life suggest, however, that it does not inhibit a parent seeking a cure for a child who is ill.

I'm afraid this will increase more and more because the Bible predicts this behavior at the end times that people will not listen to sounds doctrine anymore and people will use their emotions rather than absolute truth to verify their beliefs.

We have become way too much eyeball people as Christians assume that those who don't live according to the way they do they are unsaved, we have created this judgemental relationship which hurts peoples fellowship with God, there are no litmus tests for people that believe in Jesus, which is why we are called to not judge others, and people use James 2:14, and 1 John's verse of those who practices righteousness are righteous even though I think it's talking about earthly righteousness toward people that we as Christians should show because there is a lost world out there that needs are help and these doctrines of guilt, condemnation, anger, and judgement aren't helping in fact they are doing the opposite, just like how in James it's justification towards man.

Keller ties a little bow on that section of the message saying that the doctrine of hell «can be used to create a pretext for cruelty,» but that the «biblical doctrine of hell» is that Jesus came «not to bring judgment but to bear judgment and to go to hell for his enemies.»

I use the term assumed, because it was not a major issue until the doctrine of subsequence became more prominent after the Azuza Street revival.

You would agree then that the problem is not with the doctrine but with people who are not being «imitators of God» in how they are using what they believe?

The doctrine of the Trinity, which does this for Christians by using categories drawn from Greek philosophy, is not stated anywhere in the Bible.

If it were not for the doctrine of original sin, which follows from the resurrection — just as a parting glance at who we used to be follows from seeing ourselves as we are coming to be — we would be left with a religion requiring us to «get it right,» and that is no joy at all.

In particular, Hegel's use of the dynamics of the trinitarian doctrine and his thorough dependence on the idea of incarnation for establishing the relations of subjective, objective, and absolute Spirit, mean that the Christian theologian feels at home with Hegel, even if he or she is not exactly sure why.

People and governments sometimes scapegoat religion or use it as additional motivation for the massive, but that is not religion's fault and generally not an accepted part of many religious doctrines.

We do not have a set of doctrines to tell us to deny equal rights to people and for anyone to use their unfounded belief to do so, makes them hypocritical bigots.

In other words, a religious organization can use the ministerial exception or church autonomy doctrine to defend itself during a case, but not use it to escape from trial altogether.

Secondly, if Christian leaders use the concepts of the new ethic without explicitly clarifying what distinguishes them from the social doctrine of the Church and from the gospel, as is often the case, the faithful will be at a loss and will tend not to discern the difference.

Paul blessings as i shared with Christine it is a personal relationship with Jesus when Jesus called his disciples he said follow me not the church not man.I belong to 2 churchs and i keep in touch with a couple indirectly and minister from time to time they are all different styles and different doctrines and in each of them i have people i care about they are family to me brothers and sisters in the Lord and i can go there and feel at home we sing and worship the Lord and hear the word together its awesome.I used to feel that i did nt fit in now i can fit in anywhere because where we go he goes with us.There is unity in Christ even though we may differ in doctrine.brentnz

Women are to remain quiet and not teach — because Eve was deceived in the Garden of Eden and the concern is that Satan will use women in like manner to teach false doctrine to the church.

I am not against right doctrine; just against the improper use of doctrine.

Using a biblical principle to prove what you don't believe is a biblical doctrine.

Jesus may not have been a philosopher — but then again he never wrote a single book or letter in the NT — the people that seem to have philosophical leanings are used are the core building blocks of the doctrine of tghe church — John's gospel and Paul.

For a blogger who wants to bring doctrine to life, its confusing you don't want us to use scripture to justify our means of survival and ministry.

Relating this to a doctrine of God, he writes, «If God contains my act as mine, but not as his, then my act is not his act in any personal sense, and the verb «contain» is being used in an impersonal sense.»

He will teach a false doctrine that appears to be righteous truth, so much so that I think that he will be able to convince atheists of his evil teachings, but that doesn't matter, he already has them in his «basket», but they would be extra «tools» to use to convince others of his wicket ways.

He tells us that when we come across apparently contradictory theological doctrines, we need only trace them back to their respective models which can not conflict since they are used independently of each other.

These are ancient christian doctrines so please when u use de word church it is not Christ's Church.

Or, the minister might discuss a doctrine in contemporary terms with some laymen — for example, of grace in relation to works; or, he might check with them a theme that he planned to present and some of the crucial words that he would use in order to test for the understandings that will and will not be present in the congregation.

The word «fallibilism» occurs in the Collected Papers as the expression of a doctrine only in 1.171 and in another fragment (1.8 - 14) of the same date (c. 1897), and I have never seen the word used in this way in writings not included in the Collected Papers.

It is not the same kind of «yes» that one finds in that tradition of theology of culture today that makes use of the world as illustrations for its doctrines of sin and redemption.

What happened later was a clarification of language and terminology used to describe the doctrine in response to those who did not believe it.

We argue about doctrine which Jesus did not give us, we use it to control and be powerful, that is why people argue and bully.

So, when you try to figure me out and classify me as «in» or «out» of whatever standard or doctrine you are using to classify, you just don't have enough information to do it.

It's not that they care to comply with religious doctrine, it's that they can use it to manipulate people.