Sentences with phrase «teaching of another man because»

Not exact matches

Their business stood out because, despite accepting both male and female clientele, the Westropp sisters wanted to have an all - female board of directors and teach women about money during a time when men still controlled much of family and business finance.

This was done because Jefferson believed that some Christian teachings were correct, however, being a man of reason, he rejected the supernatural portions which were pure iron age fairy tale.

9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.»

Because gay people are taught from a young age that being gay is wrong and that having feelings for someone of the same sex is queer, they suppress those feelings and (with men especially) those feelings often get expressed through random sex acts with other men.

We not only found ourselves united by pictures we were all in, but united in the final hours of this man who taught us to be a family, and we know he let go because he knew we got the lesson.

The teaching of universalism is that there will be salvation or universal reconciliation between God and man because we are all God's children and that the Bible teaches that all men will be saved.

People seem to think that you have to throw away all the teaching of the great men of the last century because it doesn't match with the Westminster Confession.

It remembered and taught what Jesus had said about God and man, about the kingdom of God, about human moral responsibility, and the like, because it was primarily concerned with something else.

However in the Eucharist the bread and wine become fully Christ so the Council of Trent teaches us; they no longer «remain» because now they have been assimilated to the Son of God made Man.

«Men need to be taught from the time they are little boys that part of their manhood is to feel a special responsibility for the care and protection and honoring of women just because they are men,» he saMen need to be taught from the time they are little boys that part of their manhood is to feel a special responsibility for the care and protection and honoring of women just because they are men,» he samen,» he said.

In Christ's teaching enormous stress is laid upon the way in which men and women treat one another, and the whole concept of a human being is raised in value because he is declared to be a loved and valued son of God.

actually you do nt have to prove the many deities or Gods that they really exist, because they really had existed in their times, They are part of the evolutionary process for us humans to transcend to higher consciousness.To simplify the analogy, when we were young and we are in the lower grade school, we were taught simple subjects not advance literatures but simple stories even mythicals, The same with religion, thousands of years ago when there was no science yet, primitive people had a religion, of course man made faiths to conform with their state of mind or intellect.But later atfter thousands of years we evolve into a more educated people and so new concept of God again was presented to them, another man made concept, and this go on and on, until a few thiousand years ago.monotheism, Judaism, christianity, islam, buddhism, etc also evolved, But with the accelerated evolution, these faith again is threatend with obsolesencs because of of scientific developments and education.In panthroteistic faith, the future religion needs to conform to evolutionary process, This proves that God is always there guiding the change.And it his will that made this a reality in history since the begining of the universe 13 billion years ago, and this will continue to exist until He will completely fulfill His will to infinity, Thats PANTHROTHEISM, the futue, man made religion under His guidance through scientifiic evoluition after the Bi Bang

All three of these ideas» the ultimate possession of the transformed earth by the physically resurrected saints, the explicit prophecies about Christ by pre-Christian prophets, and the deification of man as the ultimate goal of salvation through Christ» are ideas for which Mormons are still deemed un-Christian, because they are distinct from the teachings of most Protestant denominations.

That's because Piper and many in the fundamentalist neo-Reformed movement are working off of a perversion of the doctrine of total depravity that not only teaches that human beings are depraved — that is, that our humanity is marred by sin — but that this depravity renders the world's men, women, and children into valueless objects of god's wrath, worthy of nothing more than eternal torture, pain, violence, and abuse.

no this drought is caused by your god for an entirely different reason; because your god taught humans nature belongs to them, they has abused it to the point of natures first man made drought.

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 beginning.

It is because of the dark ages again settling in on speaking and teaching the Word of God, that church and religious leaders have turned from the truths of Jesus to the desires of man.

I am so not because a bunch of men told to be or taught me to be.

Because according to this same book, in these times of evil (and even the most positive - minded atheist should know something is WRONG with our environment) men will distort the teachings for their own gain.

9) It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.

7) It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.»

a knee - level view from your bit of pavement; a battered, upturned cooking pot and countable ribs, coughing from your steel - banded lungs, alone, with your face to the wall; shrunken breasts and a three year old who can not stand; the ringed fingers, the eyes averted and a five - paise piece in your palm; smoking the babus» cigarette butts to quieten the fiend in your belly; a husband without a job, without a square meal a day, without energy, without hope; being at the mercy of everyone further up the ladder because you are a threat to their self - respect; a hut of tins and rags and plastic bags, in a warren of huts you can not stand up in, where your neighbors live at one arm's length across the lane; a man who cries out in silence; nobody listening, for everyone's talking; the prayer withheld, the heart withheld, the hand withheld; yours and mine Lord teach us to hate our poverty of spirit.

Rather, the reason that women are not permitted to teach scriptures to men is, as Paul clearly states, because of GOD»S DESIGN IN THE «ORDER OF CREATION» as the «reason»of GOD»S DESIGN IN THE «ORDER OF CREATION» as the «reason»OF CREATION» as the «reason».

Because He taught the Word of God, rather than the opinions of man.

After much study, prayer and thought I am convinced that the idea that only men are allowed to teach scripture, be a pastor, be an elder etc. etc. was a teaching that came about due to the status of women during a particular time and culture and continued because of the patriarchal system that most churches have continued to operate under.

But, please look at the teachings of Jesus for answers and don't give up on it because of man's weaknesses.

In connection with the question of the evolutionary origins of man, the Church's teaching emphasizes that spirit and matter are not the same, that spirit can not be derived from matter, and that man, because spiritual, has a metaphysically irreducible position in the cosmos, so that his origin, as far as his spiritual nature is concerned, can not be found in matter.

Advancement in most universities depends less on teaching ability than on what a man publishes.3 Writing for professional journals is of great value, of course, because only experts in the same field are able to judge a man's contribution and benefit from it.

Anthony Esolen, writing in the Foreword, states the nature of the problem: «We do not know what or how to teach children because we do not know what a child is, and we do not know what a child is because we do not know what man is - and Him from whom and for whom man is.»

Dan, i think you miss the crux of Christianity... my take n the teachings of Christianity is that the «rules» are God's standards and because of the sinful condition of the human heart no man has a hopeof reaching the standard... therein lies the dilemma.

Drawing from the Islamic imperative that «God is one» and from the Qur» an's teaching about Adam and Eve, Rauf arrives at two essential principles: that all humans are equal «because we are born of one man and woman,» and that «because we are equal... we have certain inalienable liberties,» such as the freedom to accept or reject God, to think for ourselves (ijtihad) and to make individual choices without coercion.

Because I uphold the teaching of Jesus that all sex outside of marriage (which is between a man and a woman) is wrong, then I would no longer be welcome in my old party.

And have we not as Christian been redeemed from the curse of the LAW.that could even stipulate then that God would not want women to teach men because He knew of man's attitude towards women and that man wanted to RULE (dominate) women.

I am no Scholar but, I believe God has the power to change prophecy the way that he did with Hezekiah, his intentions for a perfect people in the beginning changed due to disobedience so who's to say our men or intended leadership has overall been disobedient, and many women have been forced to lead and in that leading women have been more obedient.We all need each other if my husband was a pastor and I'm his help mate if he for some reason can't teach or preach who else other than myself would be the closest to him.I don't believe GOD changes he's always the same but, he does have the power to make changes and he does not need our permission to do so, instead of debating back and forth over our version of the Bible we should be sure we have the Holy Spirit and real relationship with GOD because he will reveal to us his truths but, please know he's not the author of confusion

«It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected.

Just because some men have peddled the Word of God for profit, does in no way negate what Paul taught in this passage.

If there is no Jesus, there is no «Christianity» — a term that is very muddled, by the way, because there are over 2,500 versions of Christianity, each designed by man to fit the teachings of Christ into the version they prefer.

Finally, he objected to the teaching of evolution, especially with regard to the origin of man, because he felt that it led to the rise of ugly ideas like eugenics and social Darwinism, and furthermore discouraged any hope for the progress of mankind.

Fox tells the story from beginning to end: childhood in the German - American parsonage; nine grades of school followed by three years in a denominational «college» that was not yet a college and three year's in Eden Seminary, with graduation at 21; a five - month pastorate due to his father's death; Yale Divinity School, where despite academic probation because he had no accredited degree, he earned the B.D. and M.A.; the Detroit pastorate (1915 - 1918) in which he encountered industrial America and the race problem; his growing reputation as lecturer and writer (especially for The Christian Century); the teaching career at Union Theological Seminary (1928 - 1960); marriage and family; the landmark books Moral Man and Immoral Society and The Nature and Destiny of Man; the founding of the Fellowship of Socialist Christians and its journal Radical Religion; the gradual move from Socialist to liberal Democratic politics, and from leader of the Fellowship of Reconciliation to critic of pacifism; the break with Charles Clayton Morrison's Christian Century and the inauguration of Christianity and Crisis; the founding of the Union for Democratic Action, then later of Americans for Democratic Action; participation in the ecumenical movement, especially the Oxford Conference and the Amsterdam Assembly; increasing friendship with government officials and service with George Kennan's policy - planning group in the State Department; the first stroke in 1952 and the subsequent struggles with ill health; retirement from Union in 1960, followed by short appointments at Harvard, at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and at Columbia's Institute of War and Peace Studies; intense suffering from ill health; and death in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, in 1971.

But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated

Antonio, judging by your reply, it sounds that you believe I am teaching a «false gospel» (if you even use the word «gospel» for the message of salvation anymore) because I believe that to receive eternal life, a person must believe in a «Jesus» who is God (John 8:24, 58) and man (1John 4:2; 2John 7) who died for his sins and rose again (1Cor.

Where is the section for teachings that show men as inferior such as when the first people to visit the tomb of Jesus are women and the men fail to believe them because they are sexist?

Because their primary job is to make their parishioners feel good about ignoring the teachings of the man they all claim to follow.

Just because there's people out there that like to believe in Jesus as being some kind of superhero here to save people and forget the fact that he was a man with specific teaching to follow, doesn't mean that you have free reign to criticize because some of us, many more than you might want to give credit to, don't act in a ridiculous manner as portrayed in articles here.

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

The most amazing performance of many, just because of who he is, may be Tom Cruise's as the charismatic guru of a cultish self - help «seminar» that teaches would - be macho men how to «Seduce and Destroy.»

And so I understood that part of Chris, because if you're a black man and you stand up for yourself it's perceived in a certain way — and that's the shit that your mum used to teach you.

It does not seem likely that one can explain these results by the quality of the student's teacher, because almost all teachers, whether men or women, are teaching boys and girls together.

Words Used: Magenta: I like going is mum look the am said to at went in me here my on dad a and come up can sat for Red: we get put with go no they today was where you she he this are will as too not but likes down big it little see so looked Yellow: when came one it's make an all back day into oh out play ran do take that then there him saw his got looking of yes mother from her baby father Blue: have help here's home let need again laugh soon talked could had find end making under very were your walk girl about don't last what now goes because next than fun bag coming did or cake run Green: always good walked know please them use want feel just left best house old their right over love still took thank you school much brother sister round another myself new some asked called made people children away water how Mrs if I'm Mr who didn't can't after our time most Orange: man think long things wanted eat everyone two thought dog well more I'll tree shouted us other food through way been stop must red door sea these began boy animals never work first lots that's gave something bed may found live say night small three head town I've around every garden fast only many laughed let's suddenly told word forgot better bring push Word List Acknowledgement: www.tkp.school.nz/files/530877945427c642/folders/1/Highfrequencyhomewordlists%20(2).pdf ********************************************************************** © Suzanne Welch Teaching Resources

«Teachers generally don't go into teaching for money, especially in these days when they have access to all other lines of work,» in contrast to years past when women and men of color went into education because they were blocked from some fields, Johnson says.