Sentences with phrase «truth claims of other»

Further, to affirm the utter finality of the revelation of Christ is to deny dogmatically the truth claims of other religions and to put the exclusive Christian revelation in the same category as Baha Ullah and Joseph Smith.

Not exact matches

The techniques include claiming outrageous statements were jokes or misunderstandings; saying and doing things and then denying it; blaming others for misunderstanding their intent; disparaging others» concerns as over-sensitivity; and other forms of twilighting the truth.

Christians should be the first to saddle up next to others claiming the name of Jesus and speak truth to them when there are those going over an edge.

In his Natural History of Religion (1757), the Scottish philosopher David Hume — in agreement with other skeptical and agnostic English and French thinkers — said that Christianity's claim to absolute truth was to be blamed for the devastating civil wars that had taken place in Britain and France.

It is one thing to offend by speaking truth, that'll happen, but any other type of offence is unnecessary and against the teachings (which show God's heart on the matter) in scripture for those who claim to «know Him».

Christianity is «intolerant» in the sense that (like its monotheistic relatives, Judaism and Islam) it claims to possess a universal truth superior to the teachings of other religions; and it has spread this doctrine with a missionary zeal perhaps exceeding even Islam's.

When so many people with different versions of God (s) claim a monopoly of truth for their interpretation exclusive of all the others, the logical conclusion is that none of them are right.

When Jesus claims that he is the truth, he asserts that truth is a relationship and part of an encounter, and it can never be seen as a contextless principle that can be used to hurt others.

Those claiming that there is predestination toward damnation would have a problem with the following verse (and others): «This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.»

For instance, pluralism and respect for others of a different religion (never implying, of course, some kind of «equal status» between conflicting religious truth claims).

That is, many contemporary theologies tend to believe that we can derive the normative content of faith, truth and justice directly from the immediate contexts of our social, economic and political situations; at the same time, other contemporary theologies have abandoned even trying to argue that theological claims are in any sense normative.

Not only do my own private experiences of the bible's truth claims give me good reason to believe it's assessment, but the success and consistency of biblical anthropology in other quarters (not least literature and philosophy) means that I have absolutely no reason to be ashamed.

On the contrary, affirmation of the other is based on truth claims: love of God and of neighbor, for example, is not just a polite suggestion, but the exacting absolute injunction of God who created us «in the image and resemblance of God.»

has about it something of a demand for a pedigree, which might at least lend some credibility to the claims Christ makes for himself; for want of which, Pilate can do little other than pronounce his truth: «I have power to crucify thee» (which, to be fair, would under most circumstances be an incontrovertible argument).

«Full and free discourse» is, in other words, a summary expression of the internal conditions of discourse noted earlier: equal freedom of all participants to advance and contest any claim and the arguments for it, and uncompromised commitment on the part all participants to seek the truth.

The crisis for religion, he said in The Sacred Canopy and other writings, is how to maintain the «plausibility structure» of traditional religion in a world that does not think religious truth claims are plausible.

Despite the fact that even today many in the Confessional Church will not see and admit it, there could have been no other outcome than that this truth of the freedom of the church, despite the claims of National Socialism, should come to signify not only a «religious» decision, not only a decision of church policy, but also and ipso facto a political decision.

As opposed to listening to the ramblings of a bunch of plagiarists from the dark ages who thought they could figure out the origins of the universe by copying what other religions of the day claimed but tweaking it enough to call it «the truth»?

Secondly, ALL the religious books claim to be the inspired word of God, and that all others are not the truth.

And if this is not the case, are there not other religious traditions, each with its own historical concept of the ultimately real, and their claims to truth?

When I reflect on the infinite pains to which the human mind and heart will go in order to protect itself from the full impact of reality, when I recall the mordant analyses of religious belief which stem from the works of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and, furthermore, recognize the truth of so much of what these critics of religion have had to say, when I engage in a philosophical critique of the language of theology and am constrained to admit that it is a continual attempt to say what can not properly be said and am thereby led to wonder whether its claim to cognition can possibly be valid — when I ask these questions of myself and others like them (as I can not help asking and, what is more, feel obliged to ask), is not the conclusion forced upon me that my faith is a delusion?

What Hitler had claimed and gotten from the German people was precisely the acknowledgment that the truth for them was found «apart from and beside the one Word of God» — in the Nazi Party — and that it was in «other events and powers, figures and truths» — in the Nazi ideology, rise to power and leaders — that Germany's salvation was located.

Agnosticism — the view that the truth of certain claims — especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims — are unknowable.

They believe that such language is defined by the categories of the Enlightenment, that there are different ways of reasoning, and that the church must make its claims to truth on a contested field without shouting in advance that others are wrong and it alone is right.

By long tradition the schools are deliberately responsive to the claims of truth and of other ideals of excellence.

I guess the JDL has gone the way of all the other corrupt and conscienceless «help» groups claiming to stand for truth, justice and everyman.

Instead of subordinating Christian claims to realist (or other) canons of truth that stand outside Christianity, Marshall proposes, Christian thinkers should argue from an explicitly Christian standpoint.

On the other hand, of course, an empty claim for confirmation, without devotion for being and becoming, again and again mars the truth of life between man and man.

Must not these truth claims, like all other truth claims, be judged at the court of reason?

A more sophisticated screening of Scripture is carried out by others who claim that we must look in Scripture for the «locus classicus» of a Biblical doctrine and concentrate on its teaching, interpreting all else in light of its truth.

@Colin & others I'm not going to argue your claim that orientation is genetic because I think there is some truth to it, however, I have questions about the evolutionary shift to growing numbers of LGBTs.

It is not quite accurate to claim, as Connelly does, that the Second Vatican Council «entreated [us] to think of other religions as sources of truth and grace.»

Referring to C. S. Lewis's much - cited claim in The Abolition of Man, Kass writes that if «man's so - called power over nature is, in truth, always a power exercised by some over others with knowledge of nature as their instrument, can it really be liberating to exchange the rule of nature for the role of arbitrary human will?»

Other Catholic critics lamented Silence's implications, appealing to centuries of church teaching and the eternal validity of Christianity's truth claims.

The point is, other religions can not touch in the remotest sense the historicity and actual truth claims of the Bible, so we are not complete fools for believing the good news.!

But a just appreciation of God's general revelation of Himself should preserve the truth that Christianity has meaning for man precisely because it represents a fulfillment of the knowledge of God which is made possible through all the things which He has made, Nygren claims, of course, simply to be setting forth scientifically the fundamental Christian motif without arguing its truth or value against any other motif.

Hiding behind claims of revealed truth that were not allowed to be questioned and of infallible authority that could not be challenged, Christians have condemned Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Freud and many other great breakthrough thinkers in the various fields of an exploding human knowledge.

If the Christ myth is true in the way that it claims to be true, it stands to other myths as the fulfillment of their promise and truth.

the only real control one has is the outward interactions with others and if those who claim to hold to a moral code show a lack of understanding on said claims then it is the duty of those seekers of truth to right the wrongs committed in the names of others by ignorant fools.

If you can't verify the truth of your claim, there's no point in letting others hear the claim, because they will not understand what you are talking about.

As often formulated it seems that supporters of the correspondence theory of truth claim that there is correspondence between thoughts or verbal expressions on the one side and something nonlingustic on the other.

If all truth is God's truth (as people claimed on the Hitler post), then why are some so shocked when some of God's truth is found in the writings of other religions?

so much so that they seek out something without any merit nor even a shredd of evidence and then claim it to be more then truth but the word of god who for all intents and purposes is equal to every other make believe creature in the entire history of man - kind!

Still others it strips of their claims to possess autonomous truth and value, and uses them as vehicles of communication (philosophy, language.

Poetry's unique ability to penetrate and portray the prevalence of the world4 without making assertive claims of truth or falsity gives poetry a power of expression unmatched certainly by any other linguistic mode of utterance.

Disagreement about theology is one thing, but I take it that from your perspective, material truth is all that you can understand (for the time being, at least), and the notion of anyone claiming to believe (or better yet experience) other truths is abhorrent to you.

Christians can understand the distinctive religious truth of other religions as rooted in connections with real dimensions of the triune God, I am convinced, for instance, that the Theravadan Buddhist end is, in fact, as that tradition claims, a cessation of suffering.

His tomb is empty — unlike the founders of all other religions — validating Jesus claim that is THE way THE life and THE truth, and nobody comes to God except through him.

Heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and the philosophical tradition of Logical Positivism (the idea that if something is not able to be judged true or false, then we are rationally compelled to ignore it as irrelevant), much of the modern Church has bought into the belief that the truth of Christianity should be treated like any other set of factual claims, and that people of faith can somehow rationally observe ultimate truth with a level of personal detachment and objectivity.

It's kind of sweet the way Christians sometimes recognize the legitimacy of each other's claim to being «followers of Jesus Christ's truth.»