Sentences with phrase «shared by religions»

Globalisation for the Common Good means the promotion of ethical, moral and spiritual values - which are shared by all religions - in the areas of economics, commerce, trade and international relations.

To be aware that we harm others, to establish ideals to live by personally, and to feel guilt for not living up to those ideals are things shared by all religions.

Not exact matches

And yes, the religions do share MANY similarities because originally the same information was sent down by God in the Torah, Bible, and Qur «an.

They fought on the Maidan and now fight in the east for a dignified life and for the integrity of their country as a society united by a shared vision of the common good, not by blood or language or religion.

It is a call for like - minded people of like - faith to UTILIZE the religions freedom established by our forefathers to vote into office a person who... according to our shared beliefs... fits in with our concept of what makes a person «honest, forthright, [and has] a healthy vision for the nations future & its citizens.»

When the nation of Israel (of which Jerusalem was NEVER a part) was destroyed by the Assyrians in the 700's, the nation of Judah, with it's capital of Jerusalem, shared the same religion and hill - based people and many of the Israeli's escaped to Judah.

Haaretz: Israel mulls annulment of law requiring parents, adopted kids to share same religion A bill that would scrap the requirement that parents be the same religion as the child they adopt will be debated Sunday by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation.

But what do they share with religions such as those embraced by the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians, early native American Indians, or the thousands of other religions made up by isolated cultures not influenced in any way by Christianity or its founding influences?

I'm sorry you've been duped by your religion to believe that you are doing wonderful for yourself, your family, and the rest of the world, but your hate filled rant only shows the world that you have been taught that anyone who doesn't share your beliefs is obviously «below» you.

And who now can say religion is irrelevant with those millions being poured into political ads, surely in part by those interested in promoting their religion, as we all admittedly are, wishing to share our values.

All religions today share a single, common «Ultimate» beyond them all — the set of ideas about God implied by Christian religiosity.

Holloway considers this point quite directly and says that before the Fall, a couple would have had sexual intercourse as «an act of religion [by its reference to God] as well as an act of love [by its desire to share in God's creative work]».

Those who share in the criticisms but believe that they can be internalized into Christianity are in the minority among the academic students of religion and are often ridiculed and ostracized by the dominant group.

But the participants share one important conviction: they believe that the resolution of religiously rooted political tensions will be attained not by avoiding religion in public, but by initiating more and better religious conversations in public.

Where freedom of religion is allowed but not governed by a public theology, the sharing at the communion rail has little chance of being translated into the sharing of bread and drink with the hungry and thirsty.

By theology of religions, I mean critical theological reflections on the interaction and intercourse between different religions through such means as proclamation and sharing of their different creeds and teachings, through dialogue of their adherents, and mutual challenges and partnership for common cause.

I find the misinformation and uninformed opinions shared by some above to be deeply troubling... I find trying to connect or disconnect guns to or from religion even more troubling.

I won't argue with you about «religion» if by that you mean the organization of groups of individuals who share a common faith and manner of worship and study about that faith.

The various institutions of» religion grew up only after and as a result of certain attitudes, first felt by the individual, subsequently shared with a group.

Despite the predictable references to communist countries — which certainly have had their share of atrocities — I'm not seeing any suggestion that atheism drove their actions, while religions have plenty of examples of massive bloodshed directly inspired by their faith.

I'm sharing this one with all of my friends who are alienated from institutionalized religion because their hunger for God could not be satisfied by the mass marketed, cookie - cutter Christianity that too often is subsituted for meaningful theological / spiritual formation.

Their ways of doing this are most varied, ranging from a sense of acting in accordance with the «rightness in things» (as in much Chinese religion), through a mystical identification of the deepest self or atman with the cosmic reality or brahma (as in Hinduism), or a «blowing - out» of individual selfhood by sharing in the bliss of Nirvana (as in most varieties of Buddhism), to the sense of fellowship or communion with God found in our own Jewish - Christian religious tradition.

I wrote a passiage on religion and equality of religion and the sharing of love, «What is religion to be questions when by the fact, nothing makes sense.

Not only are some of its roots to be found in ancient Persian religion, but throughout most of the Christian era, the resurrection hope has been shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

This feeling was shared by many who pointed out flaws in Dawkins» arguments or, at the very least, questioned the certainty the scientist holds that all religion is a load of rubbish.

A highly personal and individual understanding of religion, shared by many who continue to go to church, has difficulty extending solidarity beyond the single individual.

It is James's purpose to rescue the word «religion» in its personal sense (apparently the word «spirituality» was not yet available as a contrasting term), since he largely shares the negative view of church held by «some persons.»

For the same reason it is instructive to know, for example, just what is fundamentally wrong with the project of John Rawls» «liberalism» (which I could also tell you about sometime, if you really wanted to know): Taylor's fame and prestige make it very probable that the sensibility he expresses (a warm respect for religion, as long as it does not make any unseemly or backward personal or political demands) is shared by many influential minds.

Davies thus proposes a «shared failing» of reason plugged by an a priori faith in both religion and science.

That shared religion can be a strengthening factor in marriage is suggested by numerous studies which reveal a correlation between church attendance and greater marital stability.

In a beautiful meditation for the Osservatore Romano in 2000, «The Heritage of Abraham,» Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger), explained the deep bonds the two communities share: «The faith witnessed to by the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament for Christians) is not merely another religion to us, but is the foundation of our own faith.»

Oh and its because church and religion is guided by misguided humans who all want their share of power of attention.

This is NOT about a religion, these are people who have been changed by Jesus, and as a result are WILLING to lose their lives to share His love with others.

Here he presented religion as a phase of the dynamic life process in which the shared valuations of a cultural group, influenced by the whole matrix of social patterns and habits inherited in the historical situation, are carried forward and readjusted.

Perhaps if there are parts of our private journeys that we would like to share with others, to ask for help with, or simply to have acknowledged by our fellow parishioners, we might ask that the inner dimension of religion be acknowledged, supported and celebrated in our gathered communities.

As to those who disbelieve or mock religion, I read something recently that I'd like to share — not out of a spirit of contention and argument, but in one of genuine concern and interest for those who have not been taught by their own mothers or fathers (as I have most thoroughly been blessed):

You yourself say that in America everyone is free to choose their own religion... that itself is a belief system, and one that these days more and more seems not to be shared by many Americans, especially in current politics.

«Today's action by the U.S. Supreme Court represents a major victory for the freedom of all religious organizations to hire employees who share the same faith — whether Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, or any other religion,» World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns said in a press release.

This is just another attempt by President Obama to get us to forget about this until after the election when his attack on those who do not share his opinion of abortion, freedom of religion, etc. will continue.

These three great religions share a number of important traits not shared, for example, by Eastern religions such as Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Taoism.

When a person tries to convert a colleague by saying, «Let me share something that I've found to be true in my own life,» we learn something vital about the location of religion in relation to that person's sense of identity.

I have never shared the strict separationist faith espoused by Leo Pfeffer (among others) that religious freedom is most secure where church and state are separated and least secure where government and religion are intertwined.

Commitment to peace and justice is the essence of religious faith — that is a conviction shared by many people in all religions not Christianity alone.

In England and Wales, members of literally dozens of religions from Scientology to Methodism and from all the denominations of Judaism to the Spiritualists and the Aetherius Society can all have a legal marriage in the place most special to them, conducted by one who shares their beliefs, and in the form that embodies their most deeply held beliefs and values.

But I tried to avoid any discussion of whether it is or is not a good idea for voters to select based on religion by considering simply «a class that shares an opinion on any particular issue», and show that this simple model was already enough to explain non-proportional representation, before discussing any more complex model.

Broken down by gender, religion and race: women are 53 percent of the gubernatorial electorate, white Catholics are at a 33 - 35 percent share, Jewish voters cast a 12 - 13 percent of the total vote, with minority voters (the aggregate of black, Hispanic, Asian and bi-racial New Yorkers) at between a 27 - 30 percent share in gubernatorial elections.

Couples of nearly every religion from Judaism to Scientology and Christianity can already have a legal marriage ceremony which embodies their beliefs and values and which is conducted by someone who shares their beliefs.

By Chris Cillizza August 19, 2010; 10:43 AM ET Categories: Worst Week in Washington Save & Share: Previous: Confusion grows about Obama's religion Next: Betty Sutton and the Big Spender

The cause of social cohesion and a peaceful society will not be advanced by the special pleading of already powerful elites whose beliefs have no popular support, but by the creation of a shared national life that treats everyone equally, regardless of religion or belief.

Controversially, «Darwin on the Right,» by Michael Sher?mer, and «Let There Be Light» [SA Perspectives], both about reconciling science and religion, drew the lion's share of reader reaction.