Nevertheless, any sensible public school teacher would be justifiably wary of routinely bringing
religious talk into the classroom.
That is, one might attempt to enlarge the scope of religious language» neither insisting on carrying one's traditional
religious talk into public discussion nor simply translating it into what may be the common currency of discussion.
Not exact matches
you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very
religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are
talking about Atheism as a
religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit
into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.
its not really atheism or religion that I have a problem with, its the hate, control, and fear that goes along with it that I have a problem with, you say that those who are spiritual are
into new agey, crystal ball, stuff, see that's what I'm
talking about, you assume to know what something is about when you don't understand something you naturally fear it, your self righteous clouds you, don't you get that by being narrow minded in your view towards things, you really act no better than
religious fundamentalists, being spiritual is a lot more than just the new agey, think positive all the time that you think it is, its about being aware of who you are?
To those impatient political enthusiasts who
talk loudly on how futile and impractical religion must always be, and who are bent on legislating human equality
into existence, Kierkegaard offers a word of counsel, «Only that which is
religious can with the assistance of eternity press the equality of men through to its ultimate conclusions: the reverent, genuine, unworldly, true, the only possible equality between men.
You can't expect the enlightened 21st century amn or woman to buy
into that old
religious talk... can you?
In other words, the fact that so many people can be swayed by
religious myths and
religious dogma helps us understand why the world is so messed up — people can be
talked into just about anything, including things that are bad for them.
Unless this problem is addressed,
religious talk will turn
into banalities.
And I agree, they are more
into «
religious»
talk than action.
Which brings to mind the question of: Paul
talked about having been sent a delusion that we believe a lie and be damned and the question is what if it is the
religious and traditional that have seen the truth and changed the truth of God
into a lie and have bought
into that lie?
So many preachers, speakers and
religious personalities have engaged what I think of as the «wussification» of the Gospel, and have turned the Gospel
into a side - bar for their faux - evangelical motivational
talks.
You have to
talk yourself
into a state of
religious fervour.
I am not
talking here about the limiting beliefs of
religious or political dogma, which for so long have shackled humanity
into fear, guilt and disempowerment, and could have their own long discussion.
They were also
into me, but after
talking for a few days the
religious issue came up.
I don't know where else the concept «Sex after marriage» do come
into talks as often as catholic women for sex tonight and accessing online singles dating sites most probably is one of the most old and accepted method, but it would be challenging to choose
religious women currently.
Most disturbingly, he seems even to have caved
into ultra-conservative
religious morons by toning down the magic (there are no details of the actual lessons taught at Hogwart's, and the spell - casting is reduced to a few minor flourishes and a strange comic - relief kid who's always blowing things up) and side - stepping the sticky revelation that Harry actually
talks to snakes in the reptiles» hissing language and not the Queen's English.
Screenwriter Ari Handel and several
religious leaders
talk about how this small Biblical story was crafted
into a big - budget epic.
Cranston is doing a loose riff on what Nicholson did in the original Ashby film, playing the rebellious, hard - drinking, tough -
talking member of the trio; Fishburne is the now -
religious man who hasn't lost the passion of his youth, he's merely channeled it
into something else; Carell sometimes looks like a shell of a man, giving the most subdued performance, and one of the best, of his career.
As your therapist (and seeing how I'm not a
religious leader, if you choose to work with me, I'd be your therapist) it would be unethical for me to try to
talk you out of your faith or
into a faith you don't want to be in.