Not exact matches
I am often so turned off to their
religious convictions for that
reason alone, because they are POSITIVE that they are correct with total disregard not only to those who might not believe in a higher being, but more oddly, to ALLLLL
of the other
religious that span the globe.
This is one
of the
reasons why years ago I joined prominent
religious leaders, including some I strongly disagree with, in signing a document expressing
convictions concerning
religious liberty.
«A 1999 follow - up by William S Harris et al. attempted to replicate Byrd's findings under stricter experimental conditions, noting that the original research was not completely blinded and was limited to only «prayer - receptive» individuals (57
of the 450 patients invited to participate in the study refused to give consent «for personal
reasons or
religious convictions»).
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner
of discharging it, can be directed only by
reason and
conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise
of religion according to the dictates
of conscience, and that no particular
religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preferrence [sic] to others.
Here lies a
reason to return to Carl Gustav Jung (1875 - 19671), Freud's early follower and most famous apostate, especially for those
of religious conviction.
The «definitive» ruling
of the Talmud is that «conversions, once performed, are valid even if entered into for
reasons other than
religious conviction.»
The
reasons for this preference are partly to be sought in his own personal development (Hindu home, Christian instruction), partly in his primary interest in the intellectual expression
of religious experience or, in other words, the philosophical bent
of his nature, and, last but not least, in his often voiced
conviction that we have to «get behind and beneath all outward churches and religions, and worship the nameless who is above every name.
It was the firm
conviction of secular philosophy as well as
religious teaching in my youth that morals and rational
reasoning lead to the same conclusions, and this was the basis
of the trust in progress I was brought up with.
IMO, Patra is a negative example
of a
religious follower: someone who adopts a religion not by way
of a personal spiritual journey and genuine
conviction, but for social
reasons, such as to please someone (in her case, Leo), looking outside oneself to find the answers, to be led and told what to do.
There are many
reasons why people might have voted no which have little to do with what they think about LGBTQI + people, including
religious convictions, misinformation, language barriers, fear
of change, or unfounded fears
of what else might change if the Marriage Act changes.