Sentences with phrase «understand by religion»

Almost all people, inside as well as outside the church, find that the notion of grace stands in contradiction to everything they understand by religion.

In so far as Marx is seeking to bring the idea of «real distress» (as understood by religion) into relation with their human condition of distress (as understood by human beings) so as to transform the human condition, his critique of religion reveals an existential pathos», and it is religiously edifying.

Not exact matches

I don't understand why anyone would be offended by someone praying for the souls of their dead ancestors, whatever religion you happen to be, if you don't believe in God it isn't like it hurts anything, if you beleive in a different God, again it isn't like it hurts anything...

You might not understand that non-Mormons do not believe in your religion and are OFFENDED by your beliefs and your practices of trying to Mormanize the dead, particularly those who were killed for not being Christian such as Anne Frank.

christianity is only most decieved by this as jewish and islam even many oriental religions are understanding true nature of god holy spirit BUT NOT CHRISTIANS!!!

What I don't understand is why they feel that they need to force their religion on everyone by trying to force a theocracy on us all — cant you just practice your «faith» and leave the rest of us alone?

Therefore, focus on truly understanding your own holy book used by your religion, whatever that is.

If as you say you have talked to others who claim to be Atheist the way you describe it then they are IDIOTS who also don't understand Atheism and yes at that point since they are claiming «no God» to be true, then by all means call their point of view a «religion».

if there was no evil, us as mankind would not need religion, we have religion, cause we try to say to god we are not tempted by evil, and the more that evil tempt us, we prey, i have decided to try and understand to two main peoples whys good and bad, god and the devil, god loves mankind, but he loves the devil more, blood is blood,

i can understand how our traditional religions work, having been created in times of ignorance of the natural world and perpetuated by a combination of coercion, indoctrination and groupthink.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that her boyfriend converted her, like many people on here have... I understand it, as an agnostic and not an atheist... There is a human need that is filled by religion that is hard to be met elsewhere.

While Buddism is definitely prevalent in places such as China, it is not a Buddist nation (by my understanding, I believe China actively opposes any religion, but I could be wrong.)

I can understand a distrust with organized religion and being an atheists, but are you not doing the same thing as Christians by saying what you think is real or calling out those that you think are wrong.

That is, if Wilson's purely functionalist explanation of religion were to become widely accepted by religious people, it would then be rendered false» for the adaptive features of religions depend, on Wilson's account, upon religious people thinking it false that their religions are best understood as adaptive social organisms.

She is surrounded daily with supporters who bolster her views, people who understand themselves as moral crusaders, pursuing their aims with all the zeal inspired by political ideology or — perhaps more aptly — ersatz religion.

For a certain sector of society, religion has been replaced by the aesthetic, by culture understood as high culture (and, increasingly, as deviant culture).

And he cites Steven Cohen who wrote that, by the early 1980s, most «American Jews had been raised with the understanding that liberalism or political radicalism constituted the very essence of Judaism, that all the rest — the rituals, liturgy, communal organizations — were outdated, vestigial trappings for a religion with a great moral message embodied in liberalism.»

its not really atheism or religion that I have a problem with, its the hate, control, and fear that goes along with it that I have a problem with, you say that those who are spiritual are into new agey, crystal ball, stuff, see that's what I'm talking about, you assume to know what something is about when you don't understand something you naturally fear it, your self righteous clouds you, don't you get that by being narrow minded in your view towards things, you really act no better than religious fundamentalists, being spiritual is a lot more than just the new agey, think positive all the time that you think it is, its about being aware of who you are?

But all religions are elitist to a point - they all think they are right and the best - but you can not go out and preach the word of Christ by alienating those you wish to hear the word... it's like someone from a country club going to a homeless person and throwing out all the benefits of the country club and the amazing life of the people who are members... Not exactly welcoming and understanding.

There seems to be an assumption that because we are wise and atheistic, anyone in the past whom we admire can not have been too much affected by religion — that their faith is just a cultural appurtenance of as little importance to understanding their thought as their hairstyle.

Never must one of these new religions be laughed at or dismissed easily; rather it must be understood on its own terms and as a serious response to some fundamental issues raised by the women's movement.

By the way, if you want to understand religion, the very last person you should turn to is a religious scholar.

If you have been burned by religion, have suffered from the manipulation of religious leaders, or feel that God has lied to you, left you hanging, and can not be trusted, begin the path toward understanding God's heart for you, and gaining the true freedom He wants for you today.

What is he allowed himself to be crucified (by not commanding or otherwise organizing a political kingdom or other form of resistance) because he knew from stories and other traditions (or even the Jewish tradition) that a prophet / king is only understood for so long and gradually the religion that spawns from that individual corrupts into something that the prophet never would have wanted.

If we are struck by Francesca's courteous speech, we note that she is also in the habit of blaming others for her own difficulties; if we admire Farinata's magnanimity, we also note that his soul contains no room for God; if we are wrung by Pier delle Vigne's piteous narrative, we also consider that he has totally abandoned his allegiance to God for his belief in the power of his emperor; if we are moved by Brunetto Latini's devotion to his pupil, we become aware that his view of Dante's earthly mission has little of religion in it; if we are swept up in enthusiasm for the noble vigor of Ulysses, we eventually understand that he is maniacally egotistical; if we weep for Ugolino's piteous paternal feelings, we finally understand that he, too, was centrally (and damnably) concerned with himself, even at the expense of his children.

While it might be true that those who lived in the time of the Prophet could understand religion better than the people of today who must study Islam by means of documents only, we can not ignore the considerable change in the social situation and world conditions during the past fourteen centuries.

This understanding of the practical meaning of our first freedom makes it easier to see why the practice it protects so easily outgrows the narrow bounds of the exercise of religion as envisioned by our legal system.

According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers — still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion — but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles.

the purpose why God allowed multiple religions to evolve and exist in the distant and even today is because our minds intellectual capacity has increased tremendously after we became civilized about 10,000 years go.Earlier when we were hunter gatherers our priorities was just to find food to survive, Then we became more knowlegible and our concern includes the intelle tual need to understand the meaning and purpose of our existence, so God allowed the founding and establishment of many religions by humans to conform with their intellectual, social and educational development, Since this is not static, it contiually diversify and change to conform with their times of existince, History showed that this is continuesly improving, so the future expects changes towards Panthrotheism in accordance to His will.

We have learned that when we focus on the harms caused by religious hostility toward gay people — its destructive role in the lives of gay and lesbian Americans and explaining that being gay is not a lifestyle choice but is how you are born — persons of faith can understand why religion must no longer be misused to justify hostile attitudes and actions toward LGBT people.

What about compassion, understanding and consideration for the people effected by 9 - 11 in the name of this religion?

Even the modern Unitarian, insofar as he or she would make claim to the Christian name whatever may be thought about theological definitions of Jesus Christ's significance, will say that his or her religion is toward God as God is defined by Jesus Christ — which is to say that the specifically Christian understanding of God must be in terms of what Whitehead styled «the Galilean vision.

By invoking the memory of Galileo's struggle with the church in the same breath with the «revolutions in science» associated with Newton, Darwin and Einstein and the claim that science transforms our self - understanding, the writers fall into a stereotype about the warfare between science and religious faith and they exhibit a 19th - century common belief that science will displace religion.

scott god also told us not to judge, so let cleflo do cleflo and you do you if you do nt understand how to percieve gods word than it could also be you i remember when i first got saved i was taught a lots of religion stuff but i kept running after god and not after man and he revile some things to me thur his holy spirit watch what you say about gods people cause we all have issues and with that being said be blessed and if hes doing wrong by gods word than he has to answer to god not you so why set yourself up to be curse for it god do nt need your help in nothing stay free cause who god set free is free indeed.

You said, «I am sure you understood the point that we are run by religion and you are not free of it just because you write some man made law that says no religion.»

Unfortunately, most of America is not familiar with the «rules» dictated by the Jewish religion and through their lack of understanding will not pressure the officials to move the time of the game.

LinCA I am sure you understood the point that we are run by religion and you are not free of it just because you write some man made law that says no religion.

Then you understand why your baseless claims about religion are ridiculous to those of us who are impacted by such nonsense.

Then there is the school of Christianity characterized by Quakers, Congregationalists, and others, who understood that slavery was a terrible evil and didn't pretend to justify it with their religion.

The third trend is characterized by (1) a clearer methodological consciousness concerning the field, purpose, and method of the sociology of religion; (2) a profounder understanding of the nature of religious communion; (3) a rapprochement between students of religion from theological and philosophical points of view, and of students of society.6 Outstanding are the works of Raoul de la Grasserie and H. Pinard de la Boullaye, S. J., of Roger Bastide and Robert Will.

Some how it's felt that values, morals, virtues are not there in a secular world only faceless solid lifeless laws of men rather than what has been relayed by Holy books that calls for good deeds and reject bad deeds and to build a faithful societies, communities, nations since communications among nations or even among the nations of mixed cultures and beliefs... Laws or God and universe are to be prepared by some thing that is equivalent to UN but built on nations beliefs to achieve the code of understanding among nations but as can see now it is build on groundless bases if not of words of God to faiths... in addition to those non spiritual secular beliefs to make decisions of faith but at the moment the secular world make and take the decisions while the beliefs and faiths has to pay for it when it becomes a war between all faiths or religions outside your world, it would become back into your inside among the mixed culture and beliefs of the nation or nations under one country flag...!

Those barbarians in the middle east don't understand freedom of religion because they are culturally retarded by about 1400 years.

When the negative movement of religion is understood as being a reversal of the profane, there is a clear implication that religion acts by way of a backward movement or return, with the inevitable corollary that the sacred is an original or primordial Reality.

As with all religions followed by all manner of people, their needs to be understanding brought about thru civilized conjectures found out to be as an educational sermon toward all and everyone's faith subjective rationalisms.

It's easy to understand why the Roman torture device that is the symbol of a soon - to - be-marginalized religion is inappropriate in any monument set up by rational people.

The Integrative Jurisprudence of Harold J. Berman Edited by Howard O. Hunter Westview, 164 pages, $ 59 A much - deserved festschrift for a jurist who has made an inestimable contribution to understanding the connections between law, morality, culture, and religion.

These are not questions with fixed answers, and while I don't agree with (or necessarily understand) all of the authors» conclusions, it is a welcome chance to step outside the paths that have been well trodden by a multitude of «science vs religion» books.

Incidentally, however, by comparing what he knows about Christianity with what he can learn about other religions, he can achieve a perspective by which to understand the uniqueness of the Christian tradition and to face up to the meaning of the Christian mission.

They can not understand that their own religious followers betrayed them by making it a religion of terror.

Though in the past decades there has been an appreciable cooling off of the fervor displayed at the beginning of the twentieth century by the advocates of the psychology of religion, still today the various schools of depth - psychology and psychoanalysis offer clues to the understanding of the unconscious and its workings.