Sentences with phrase «other kind of religion»

(CNN)- Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell says she tried «every other kind of religion,» including witchcraft and Buddhism but became a Christian because of her love of Italian food.

Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell says she tried «every other kind of religion,» including witchcraft and Buddhism but became a Christian because of her love of Italian food.

Not exact matches

I've been to funerals and encountered this kind of prejudice where those leading the service insisted you must be a member of their religion to get over grief, and you can only really talk about it in the language of the Bible, no other discussion has any meaning.

Guiding Principles Religious and theological studies depend on and reinforce each other; A principled approach to religious values and faith demands the intellectual rigor and openness of quality academic work; A well - educated student of religion must have a deep and broad understanding of more than a single religious tradition; Studying religion requires that one understand one's own historical context as well as that of those whom one studies; An exemplary scholarly and teaching community requires respect for and critical engagement with difference and diversity of all kinds.

CNN, you would never run this kind of article that bashes other religions such as Islam.

All I'm trying to say here is that when I'm told to love God with my whole heart, soul and mind, and to love my neighbor as myself, and to forgive others unconditionally, and to love my wife unconditionally, and to be kind and compassionate to others and to love my en emies and to take care of orphans and to feed the hungry and not to li e or to e nvy or be boastful or arro gant or hypoc ritical or a gossip or proud, and when I'm told that God demonstrated his love for us in that while we were still in s in, Christ di ed for us, I realize that these things have no relevance to the grie vances I find in» religion.»

I personally think religion should not be a factor.No one should ask the candidates what their religious views are and they should never mention them.Their religious preferences have absolutely no effect on what type of leader they will be.Unless they are some kind of a religious fanatic.I think it's time for an atheist.There was not a Christian president for over the first 50 years of our nations existence.And, I do not think there has been one since.If you look it up you will find not one of our founding fathers were Christian.Not even Jefferson.I know he wrote the Jefferson bible, but, that's just because he, like the other founding fathers, did not believe Jesus to be of divine decent.So, he kept his philosophy while removing all the mystical and dogmatic concepts.

These injunctions are of two kinds — those which constitute the inner core of religion and are in full accord with the laws of nature, and others which form a protective cover to the original commands.

For instance, pluralism and respect for others of a different religion (never implying, of course, some kind of «equal status» between conflicting religious truth claims).

If so, the variety of gods in other religions are explained to be the attributes of the greater God, kind of like Son, Holy Ghost, Virgin, saints, angels etc..

I, like most other persons who attempt to engage in some kind of ojbective reasoning process, have great doubt about the «mystical» elements of all religion.

human beings, «born free and equal in dignity and rights,» are entitled to human rights «without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

But in my experience, some of the most forgiving, kind, and generous people I know are of some religion other than Christianity.

Also I'm most of the time very good at judging others to some kind of standard that I expect people to live by, meaning I want to put them into religion or at least have some kind of control over them.

1) seperation of church and state; state funded public schools can't teach anything that is directly influenced by religion other than just touching on that kind of topic.

This kind of organization of service may be of genuine value not only to members of local churches but also to others who, while sympathetic to religion or the church, have nevertheless not gone so far as to join a church.

He promotes other religions, no he promotes tolerance of the beliefs of others and the kind of Christianity I see promoted in these comments rejects any belief but those held by the writers.

There never was a time in History that atheists exist, only in this present stage of our intellectual developement that they deny His exisrence, but it can be easily explained that they are just part of the dialectical process of having to have two opposing arguments or forces to arrive to the truth, The opposing forces today are the theists or religious believers of all religions and the other are the atheists who denies religion, The reslultant truth in the future will be Panthrotheism, the belief that we are all one with the whole universe with God, and that we Had all to unite to prepare for human survival that will subject us humans in the future.Aided by the the enlightend consevationist, environmentalists, humanists and all of the concerned activists, we will develop a kind of universal harmony and awareness that we are all guided towards love and concern for all of our specie.The great concern of the whole conscious and caring world to the natural disaster in the Phillipines,, the most theist country now is a positive sign towards this religious direction.Panthrotheism means we will be One with God.

It's this kind of over the top judgement, holding others to your personal religious beliefs, that are responsible for so many Americans today feeling that religion in general has nothing to offer besides bigotry, judgement, and a sad credo that everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do is wrong and evil.

Should they come to power, all other religions as well as other Christian denominations would be disenfranchised, and what kind of liberty would we have then?

I think that this kind of instruction is important and am thankful that I have at least a general knowledge of what my brothers and sisters believe in other religions.

We're in an energy crisis, stupid religions are fighting each other, men are so afraid of women in other countries having any kind of personal freedom, people are starving, the world is becoming over-populated to the point where it simply can not support itself, and you prefer to sit around and argue this stuff instead.

I enjoy reading all kinds of ancient texts... as you find out when doing this, reading about other religions and their texts of faith... you find that there are alot of common denominators..

In addition, sociologists can object that the concept of plausibility structures as venues of discourse and interaction diminishes the importance of other kinds of social resources for maintaining religion.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms of this Declaration without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status».

But so far, I have not found the kind of grace I described above in any other religion.

To a certain extent, Christianity could resist these kinds of evil structures; so it was not a denial of other religions, but the denial of evil practices which were exploitative, oppressive and dehumanizing.

That is the kind of intolerance that makes the US no better than those countries where muslim extremists will not tolerate other religions.

A few paragraphs later Cardinal Dulles laments that «the greatest threat to religion, in my estimation, is the kind of secularism that would exclude religion from the public forum and that treats churches as purely private institutions that have no rightful influence on legislation, public policy, and other dimensions of public life.»

Once that kind of necessarily collaborative enterprise was initiated, then the urgent need for Christian theologians to understand the significant similarities and differences between Christianity and the other world religions could finally move to the center of Christian theological attention.

I have benefited from other efforts to classify civil religions, especially John A. Coleman, «Civil Religion,» Sociological Analysis, 31 (Summer1970), pp. 67 - 77, and Martin E. Marty, «Two Kinds of Two Kinds of Civil Religion,» in R. E. Richey and D. G. Jones, eds., American Civil Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), although some of their distinctions are not incorporated in my typology.

most churches represent the community in which it is found in many respects if the community is multi-disciplinary in it's religions — then multi-disciplinary churches, as well as many other churches of all kinds, can be found there are real differences in the religious atmosphere and realities in the USA compared to the Mid-East the seperation of church and state is taken fairly seriously — and — from what i have seen so far — is a good thing for most

In other words, the kind of person who gives Christians a bad name, and why so many people abhor people like you who uses religion to try and quash people's rights.

The corner stone of ALL religions is also the ONLY religious principle that I was taught in the «business ethics» class I took in college... Put simply, if everyone did their very best to follow the «the golden rule» (i.e. due unto others as you would have them do unto you) in everything they do, WE WOULD HAVE A BETTER SOCIETY TODAY EVEN WITHOUT ORGANIZED RELIGION OF ANY KINof ALL religions is also the ONLY religious principle that I was taught in the «business ethics» class I took in college... Put simply, if everyone did their very best to follow the «the golden rule» (i.e. due unto others as you would have them do unto you) in everything they do, WE WOULD HAVE A BETTER SOCIETY TODAY EVEN WITHOUT ORGANIZED RELIGION OF ANY KINOF ANY KIND.

Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more «scientific» (i.e., empirically based) than any other kind of faith.

NOT sorry to disapoint you but MY religion or spirituality is NONE of your business and suits me just fine, makes me a better person, more accepting of others, more kind to my fellow earthbound souls, more respectful to mankind and morther earth than all religions combined who unfortunately have over 2ooo years of evidence of horrors committed against each other ALL in the name of the religous organizations you want me to join??? I think I will stick with my smorgasborg of this and that spirituality.

There are many other writers who have taken a crack at definitions — often with an apparent attempt to attack religion, Christianity, Alcoholics Anonymous, the «recovery industry,» addiction medicine, treatment programs, certain scholars, certain historians, and many other kinds of targets.

The key difference here that all other major world wide religions condemn that kind of behavior, not condone it as do MUSLIMS by their IN - ACTIONS and SLIENCE!!

I think one reason I kept looking to religion was that I'd never known anything else, but also because I wasn't part of other kinds of groups.

Traditions of every kind, hoarded and manifested in gesture and language, in schools, libraries, museums, bodies of law and religion, philosophy and science — everything that accumulates, arranges itself, recurs and adds to itself, becoming the collective memory of the human race — all this we may see as no more than an outer garment, an epiphenomenon precariously superimposed upon all the other edifices of Nature (the only truly organic ones, as it may appear): but it is precisely this optical illusion which we have to overcome if our realism is to reach to the heart of the matter.

The global ubiquity of social media means that kids are able to interact with other kids from all kinds of countries, ethnicities and religions.

The contributions on the one hand of Biblical, historical and systematic theology, of history, the sociology of religion and the theology of culture; and on the other, the practical experiments and experiences in ecumenical, national, municipal and parish organization of church life, will, one may hope, eventually be brought together in some kind of temporary historical synthesis.

Personal religion, then, is not in any ultimate sense personal, but is the product of a certain kind of society, which, like all other kinds of society, imposes itself on individuals.

I for one don't think so, but I do have a problem with people who push their religion (any kind of religion) on others and act like they are a moral authority while at the same time commit horrible sins.

On the other hand, in part because of its relationship to religion, it does not have the kind of recognition accorded secular therapeutic professions.

Nietodarwin wants freedom of religion only for atheists not for any other kind of faith.

Actually, one does not have to imagine that, for these are precisely the kinds of questions discussed at length by rational choice religion scholars such as Iannaccone, Lawrence Young, Mark Chaves, and others.

All other people have their own religion, which teaches them of a God whom they can associate with themselves, a God who at least looks like one of their own kind.

Attacking theocentrically oriented theologians like Stanley J. Samartha, Ashish Chrispal says that such thinking «moves away from the centrality of Christ and the triune God,» and that Samartha «fails to recognise that the kind of pluralism he and other pluralists propose can make the religions a matter of indifference or can take a form of pious scepticism or people may renounce all religious choices, since they can live equally without them» and goes on to emphasise that

Many of them - firmly - believe there IS no other religion, everyone else is either «lost needing saving» or are some kind of evil.