Sentences with phrase «religious text so»

Now would you dare publish one similar article on any other religious text so we can have a «healthy» discussion about it?

If there is a perfect being that created the universe and believes in interfering with our world (through Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha... whatever you believe), then why are all religious texts so flawed and flimsy?

Not exact matches

Arguing that the Quran incites violence, it insisted that «the verses of the Quran calling for murder and punishment of Jews, Christians, and nonbelievers be struck to obsolescence by religious authorities,» so that «no believer can refer to a sacred text to commit a crime.»

I also have a copy of Jewish religious texts, Islamic texts and a few other faiths texts and can speak intelligently with the devout of any of them and have done so.

By contrast, traditional philosophy tends to emasculate texts like the above, construing them as mere anthropomorphisms, since obviously Gad can not be described in emotional and temporal terms — or so the doctrine goes, despite massive evidence of religious experience to the contrary.

God wants humanity to understand that nothing and nobody is beyond the scope of His redemptive purposes, and so by sending Jesus as the fulfillment of the most violent of religious texts, God not only revealed Himself by way of a stark contrast to that violence, but also showed how to reinterpret and understand those violent events in light of the self - sacrificial God dying on the cross for the sins of the whole world.

The creation myths are shown to be incorrect by evolution, big bang, etc. so religious texts are not evidence.

I have a theory that SBNRs are so because one or more or a combination of the following: (1) they can't justify their spiritual texts - and so they try to remove themselves from gory genocidal tales, misogyny and anecdotal professions of a man / god, (2) can't defend and are turned off by organized religious history (which encompasses the overwhelming majority of spiritual experiences)- which is simply rife with cruelty, criminal behavior and even modern day cruel - ignorant ostracization, (3) are unable to separate ethics from their respective religious moral code - they, like many theists on this board, wouldn't know how to think ethically because they think the genesis of morality resides in their respective spiritual guides / traditions and (4) are unable to separate from the communal (social) benefits of their respective religion (many atheists aren't either).

There is no evidence outside of religious texts and our modern knowledge shows that the creation myths of all religions are not correct, so as their foundational texts are incorrect, religions offer nothing to support the idea of a god.

So from a Whiteheadian perspective, understanding of a religious text does not rest so heavily upon existential appropriation of its message as the Heideggerians claiSo from a Whiteheadian perspective, understanding of a religious text does not rest so heavily upon existential appropriation of its message as the Heideggerians claiso heavily upon existential appropriation of its message as the Heideggerians claim.

I'm a christian but I feel as if there are so MANY denominations and translations of the Bible AND other religious text that running a country based on religion would bring that nation to its knees.

if it is all «context» and can be so subjectively read, there is either NO authorial intent (and therefore no permanent meaning) or you are assuming a larger foundation of truth to read along with the text (but that invites all the criticism you are levying against the religious).

The fact is that * both * religious texts have passages that can be read as justification for abhorrent acts, and so * both * religious traditions have a responsibility to examine and deal with those issues.

While it may be hard to understand, our knowledge of the world has actually evolved over the last several thousand years so many of the ancient understandings of the way the world works — and written into religious text — are obviously and verifiably wrong.

So, what does this mean for Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and so many more who believe that their authoritative religious texts teach something the prevailing culture finds so unacceptable that they are no longer welcome within the mainstream context, even if they are (as Louie Giglio is known for) working to eradicate slaverSo, what does this mean for Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and so many more who believe that their authoritative religious texts teach something the prevailing culture finds so unacceptable that they are no longer welcome within the mainstream context, even if they are (as Louie Giglio is known for) working to eradicate slaverso many more who believe that their authoritative religious texts teach something the prevailing culture finds so unacceptable that they are no longer welcome within the mainstream context, even if they are (as Louie Giglio is known for) working to eradicate slaverso unacceptable that they are no longer welcome within the mainstream context, even if they are (as Louie Giglio is known for) working to eradicate slavery?

The bible is false, and so is every religious text.

When the text thus interprets its interpreter, it does so not through re-engaging belief in ancient religious categories but by raising questions about the would - be interpreter's existence — his estrangement from himself and others, his experienced «fulfillment gap» between what he is and what be could be.

And an admittedly hurried examination of several texts intended for use in courses of instruction before confirmation or in «religious studies» in schools for adolescents has made it plain that this whole set of ideas is either entirely absent or is so «muted» (to put it so) that it plays no really significant part in what children or confirmands learn as they are introduced to the Christian faith and its theological implications.

Many religious texts are written with tales of magic and exageration to draw people in so they eventually get down to the deeper meanings and more life useful stuff.

Eric G: You are claiming that religious texts do not need to be accurate, (or even factual) because the message needs to be «dumbed down» so the masses can understand it.

You are claiming that religious texts do not need to be accurate, (or even factual) because the message needs to be «dumbed down» so the masses can understand it.

The very fact that we have so many sects of Christianity (and just so many religions in general) should bring to light that there is a no real consensus as to a universal interpretation of religious text.

Everyone is capable of SOME degree of hate, but the religious like to think their «god» tells them it's ok to do so because of some «holy» out - of - date texts

I am reminded that David Ben Gurion wanted to understand the world's religious texts, so he was fluent in 12 languages.

And I freely admit I sometimes use too many extraneous, space - consuming, overly - descriptive, qualifying, words or sentences written quickly and in a stream - of - conscientiousness, run - on sort of fashion with occasional typos mostly due to fatigue of being up way too late (which also explains this post in general) after a long day of political discussion which refreshingly had little religious content though of course there is often much overlap between the two but posting is barely a hobby but more of an occasional passtime so now i wonder if what I write could be considered abuse as I've can't really recall seeing much if any sorrt of «text filibustering» not that this is exactly filibustering more a spontaneous text performance response joke and meant in jest to be absurdly long and useless so of course i hope you appreciate the spirit.

There are millions of others who copy the religious doctrine of inerrancy with a text other than the Bible — for some it is the Koran, for others the sung texts of Guru Nanak and so on.

Times when Henry VIII's secretary wrote in grim jest to his friend Erasmus that the scarcity and dearness of wood in England were due to the quantities wasted in burning heretics, or when later the Puritan Cartwright, defending by Biblical texts the barbarities of religious persecution, exclaimed, «If this be regarded as extreme and bloodie I am glad to be so with the Holy Ghost»?

Yes, you fight waves of enemies wearing Eden's Gate gear that spout religious texts at you, but it felt only pushed forward so that I would be able to experience my next great scene with one of the members of the family.

So, «socialism» is often merely useless, while dogmatic literal interpretation of religious text is a real impediment and thus worse than socialism.