It just saddens me that you seem to have gotten sidetracked in a vain quest to «change the world» thru planting «churches» that are not in fact churches --- at least not if
you still accept the authority of the scriptures and it's definition of what constitutes the Body of Christ, both universally and locally.
Not exact matches
NON CHRISTIANS: While you may not
accept the Bible as an
authority, you can
still learn some truths from it.
Because on investigation of the text it is noted that Jesus
accepted Scripture as his sole and divine
authority (admittedly Jesus» pronouncements and actions were not framed in the context of the twentieth - century debate on
authority, but his trust in Scripture
still seems incontrovertible), Christians similarly believe the Bible to be basic to their faith and life.
It would mean
accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it
still having direct legal
authority in our country.
(NOTE: I'm
still hopeful that the moratorium on offshore wind will be lifted and the government will direct the Ontario Power
Authority to
accept bids for a demonstration / study project of no less than 10 megawatts.
Following the Supreme Court's latest decision, the long - cited test of whether a liquidated damages clause is a genuine pre-estimate of loss designed to compensate the innocent party rather than deter the defaulting party from committing the breach (as established by early 20th century
authority of Dunlop Tyre) is no longer conclusive although the Supreme Court
accepted that it might
still be of use in considering simple damages clauses in standard contracts.
This essential difference has been
accepted and promoted by the European
authorities for many years (see Article 1.4 of DIRECTIVE 98 / 34 / EC of 22 June 1998) and it is
still recognised by the recital (1) of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, which states: «The primary objective of standardization is the definition of voluntary technical or quality specifications».
Between the lines, the EFTA Court thus seemed to be very much inclined to
accept the procedure followed by the Icelandic
authorities, but it
still sent the case back to the national court to make the necessary findings based on the individual case (para 91).
According to a communication from the prison
authorities, the Mr I. considered that he was the real victim and he was
still unwilling to
accept the enormity of the wrong he had committed.