Sentences with phrase «taught on the nature»

There are classes taught on the nature of light.

That was true of Vatican II's authentic reforms in its teaching on the nature of the Church, the office of bishop, and religious freedom.

This is manifestly incompatible with all Catholic teaching on the nature and purpose of the Church, as well as to the truths of man himself as a created and therefore receptive being (i.e. his not being God).

Obviously there is a lot more to teach on the nature of God, this is purely lesson 1.

Not exact matches

On the face of it, the Bible's teaching about Jesus» nature is confusing if not contradictory.

Ephesians 5:21 - 33's teaching on marriage is about changing that view of marriage to one of unity and love — the kind of love that could transform the authority - subordinate nature of first - century Ephesian marriages, into what God desires for marriage in the New Covenant: oneness, companionship and mutuality.

God Himself drew on the human nature itself in order to teach us completely about Himself.

In his encyclical letter on the importance of St. Thomas» work, Pope Leo also alluded to the Church's need to maintain a deep study of science: «When the Scholastics, following the teaching of the Holy Fathers, everywhere taught throughout their anthropology that the human understanding can only rise to the knowledge of immaterial things by things of sense, nothing could be more useful for the philosopher than to investigate carefully the secrets of Nature, and to be conversant, long and laboriously, with the study of physical science.»

The words from Psalm 118 «Suscipe me, Domine» (receive me, Lord) are sung by those making profession as a monk or nun, and the teaching offered here on the nature of vows speaks to anyone who sees their human journey in terms of vocation.

Critiques offered in such responses more often than not say more about the critic's adherence or not to the Church's teaching on the subject in question than they do about the incessant nature of discussing the topic or its complexity.

Does this mesh with the Redemptive Power of Jesus Christ on the Cross and God's Nature and Teaching of «Love your Enemies, Bless those who curse you» etc etc?

I don't see anything remotely wrong or uncoufe in this suggestion; to the contrary, I see it taught not only in scripture, but in the VAST majority of texts on human nature.

Neuhaus taught me that while we have to respond to bad reason with good reason, we also have to build on that reason with revelation; that while nature and natural law are foundational, grace builds on and perfects nature.

On the topic of man's nature and substance, we don't have to rely on what the bible «seems» to say, because we have rather emphatic and repeated teaching directed to that very topic from the beginninOn the topic of man's nature and substance, we don't have to rely on what the bible «seems» to say, because we have rather emphatic and repeated teaching directed to that very topic from the beginninon what the bible «seems» to say, because we have rather emphatic and repeated teaching directed to that very topic from the beginning.

Whenever its the gay issue - all you see is ignorant Christians holding tight to their prejudices - why is it so hard to find a christian these days espousing any principle that is christlike - I was raised in evangelical christianity - and still hold on to some great teachings - but division, non unity, non acceptance and certainly denial of the creative nature of God is NOT christ - like.

Indeed, the very nature of Catholic teaching has occasioned this type of challenge, for the church maintains that its teaching is based on the natural law, which in principle can be rationally apprehended by all human beings.

The patriarchal nature of the Catholic Church and of its teaching on sexuality can not be denied; it has excluded women from any kind of significant decision - making role in the church's life.

Baker reports about the response to one of his six - day preaching tour: «The men of four villages wished at once to cut off their top - knots, and asked for baptism forthwith... I said that faith and patience were the life of Christ's people, and that a profession of this nature could not be put on and off like clothing: they had better wait;... But they said, «You must destroy our devil - places, and teach us to pray to our Father, as you call Him, in Heaven, or some beginning must be made.»

Martin Luther presented the theology of Sola scriptura that the bible is the sole source to live and understand what Christianity is all about... but the bible itself does not come with a table of contents to prove that it is correct which is why the bible itself says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth... remember that the church existed before even the bible was even put together... To understand the bible you cant just rely on your own interpretation like the protestants often say... The truth is always absolute and hence the teachings of the bible HAS to be absolute which is why the church is said to be ONE in nature (in every sense of the word), HOLY, CATHOLIC (Universal in teaching in every corner of the world) and APOSTOLIC (roots dating back to Jesus himself)... Now figure out what is that one church... The church put together the bible and the holy spirit always protected the church against false teachings and 1600 years later came about the teaching of Sola Scriptura... Protestants... look within and see whats wrong with this teaching.

He consolidated the teaching on original sin and the fallen nature of the whole human race.

Images drawn from nature thus became an accustomed medium for Jesus to articulate his teaching on the Kingdom of God.

It involves studying the holy truths and meditating on the impurity of the passions: in meditating on friendliness — in order to destroy hate; in meditating on dependent origination — to disperse error; and, finally, in studying all the teachings concerned with the nature of things.

These questions are not without significance, touching on the person of Christ and the nature of faith, and the answers will only come from an engaged discussion of the authority of Scripture, the historical witness of the church, and the clarity with which the councils, creeds, and confessions give expression to the teaching of the Bible.

This subsection itself bears comparison with Chapter II of Science and the Modern World; again it is entirely congenial to Whitehead's approach, if indeed it is not his own statement of it, that is reflected in the openings of subsections» (a) Nature of number,»» (b) Fundamental concepts of geometry,» and» (c) Nature of applied mathematics The theme of starting with clear principles in mathematics has run throughout Whitehead's earlier work, particularly his lectures on the teaching of mathematics and his textbook.

What the Essay on Radical Evil teaches about freedom, indeed, is that this same power that duty imputes to us is in reality a non-power; the «propensity for evil» has become «corrupt nature,» although evil is still only a manner of being of the freedom which comes to it from freedom.

At the same time Niebuhr felt that these two biblical teachings about man gave significance to his doctrine of man's finiteness and nature on the one hand and man's freedom of spirit on the other.

To say with such conviction that no Democrat will enter Heaven... based on YOUR interpretation of what God's holy nature is... based on a Book (no matter how much instruction and wisdom it may provide... without, it seems to me, using your own intellect to delve deeper into the whole of it... is in my opinion the sign of a Believer with a Giant Sequoia in his eye and teaching with his finger.

The individual teachings on abortion and same - sex relations fit in a larger, coherent system, and Judeo - Christian teaching emphasizes the authorship of God in nature.

We shall return to Jeremias's work on the parables again and again, for it is epoch - making in several respects, but for the moment we want only to call attention to the consequences of this work so far as a general view of the nature of the synoptic tradition is concerned the success of Jeremias's work demands that we accept his starting - point, namely, that any parable as it now stands in the gospels represents the teaching of the early Church and the way back from the early Church to the historical Jesus is a long and arduous one.

Understanding the Hebrew perspective on human nature is crucial to any attempt to comprehend the teachings of Jesus and Pauline theology regarding sexuality.

In short, I contend that the teaching that we are to love every human being is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word «agapeo» into the English word «love» combined with a misunderstanding of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (and, what I haven't touched on yet, a misunderstanding of the nature of God).

He treats in a similarly dismissive manner the Church's teaching on contraception, the morally disordered nature of homosexual acts, and other matters of great moment.

This draws on the teaching that man is by nature «capax Dei», and that the Creator never ceases to draw us to Himself.

A change in the nature of financial transactions is nota change in the teaching of the Church on usury.

In any case, the problem of defining the nature of personal identity has been with me during all of my teaching years, especially since a good part of my efforts have been focussed on borderline issues in the philosophy and psychology of personality.

Contrary to the Augustinian teaching on original sin, and human nature, they emphasized human freedom and the responsibilities and obligations of Christian faith.

Even though it flatly contradicts astronomy, geology and biology, Morris attempts to defend a literal reading of his textbook on the facts of nature: «The Bible teaches that the earth existed before the stars, that it was initially covered by water, that plant life preceded the sun, that the first animals created were the whales, that birds were made before insects, that man was made before woman.»

If you reject that the Magesterium's teaching on the very nature of a «personal» God, then why on earth even call yourself Catholic?

Dr Greg Farrelly, back by popular demand after showing off his teaching skills at London Bridge, headed up our lay - led summer meditations on the nature of the human person, and our very inspiring six autumn talks on «Love», led to the now famous (see Faith Magazine January 2015) post-Synodal tour de force by Jaqueline Stewart.

She quotes from the teachings of the Catholic Church, such as Gaudium et Spes, on a whole range of issues from the sacramental nature of marriage to theimportance of the being open to new life.

Reports that the South African Parliament has approved gay marriage, and that the U.S. Catholic bishops have reiterated Church teaching on the disordered nature of homosexual acts, once again recall the line about the real reason for the culture wars: «It's the sex, stupid.»

Catholic teaching on the marital embrace simply embrace Natural Law, the law of nature written into our bodies.

Gnostic teaching, with its emphasis on spirit and its condemnation of matter, came preaching either that it did not matter what a man does with his body, or that it was nothing less than a duty to give the fleshly nature its full sway.

b. Method depends on who is taught (man) Ways of teaching and learning depend on the nature of the learner.

The reference in its wording could be taken to suggest that this book expresses a legitimate Catholic viewpoint on the nature of dogma and the degrees of assent required of the faithful regarding magisterial teachings.

It is, of course true that revelation builds upon nature and that the Second Vatican Council decreed that «the scientific exposition of moral theology should be more nourished by the teaching of holy scripture», [1] and, indeed, that such an important document as Vehtatis Splendor is heavily based on the New Testament, including Paul.

a. Method depends on what is taught (message) The manner of teaching and learning depends primarily on the nature of the subject.

To name just four academics sympathetic to sociobiology at work in the biology departments of American universities: Timothy Goldsmith of Yale teaches a course called «Biological Roots of Human Nature»; William Zimmerman of Amherst teaches the «Evolutionary Biology of Human Social Behavior»; David Sloan Wilson (Department of Biology, SUNY «Binghamton) researches the evolutionary basis of human behavior; and Randy Thornhill at the University of New Mexico coauthored the infamous book on the evolution of rape.

He believed that, whereas Protestant Liberals were putting the emphasis on historical records and on the moral teaching of Jesus, Catholic Modernism was calling for changes of such a radical nature that it might be necessary for Catholicism to die, in order that it might rise again in a grander form, more appropriate to the age.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits