Sentences with phrase «view of right and wrong»

Instead, it bores the audience with its simplistic view of right and wrong, and it never coalesces into anything more than a naïve piece of propaganda.

When we decide to follow, we are called to lay down some of our most valuable possessions: our understanding of the world, our view of right and wrong, our assumptions about whom God favors and whom God despises, our ways and our thoughts.

The reality is that his view of right and wrong will not coincide with other believers from times, or even the Bible.

The believer also has a subjective view of right and wrong as well.

They, like any younger generation don't exactly know what they're getting into, except their own views of right and wrong, good and bad, and green.

Opposing views of right and wrong are best addressed and accommodated in a democratic political debate, with the judiciary serving the vital but secondary role of ensuring that basic rights are protected to prevent oppression of minorities by majoritarian rule.

Also in 2007, 52 percent of evangelicals said religious teachings most influence their views of right and wrong, compared to the 2 percent who cited scientific information.

Not exact matches

It appears that he's trying to sift history and take a more «nuanced» view of how history formed Christianity... I wasn't really getting a value judgment from him on the right or wrong, just that it's a mixed bag, like all history is.

As I said to a sibling, if my view is wrong in the eyes of god, then at least god knows every step of the path that led me to what I believe, and it comes down to being answerable only to god, if the Christian orthodox have it «right».

I agree with not going trying to change the world as in change to people by telling them they are wrong and I am right (IF I have understood your point of view) but I guess I'm not so convinced when it comes to society, and just accepting what ever **** is in there or anywhere.

Of course this is just another case where you think your church has it right, and all other Christians who don't hold the same view are wrong.

Too many corners of the Church have been infected with a legalistic, performance - based view of God in which God stands over our lives with crossed arms and a disappointed scowl, applauding only when we get everything just right and rendering judgment on everything we do wrong.

Which is right and which is wrong can only be judged many years later by the child's actions and view of society.

Having an academic discussion about religious views and theological beliefs is fine enough, but there is certainly no reason to go into a discussion of who is right an wrong because frankly, you do not know.

This is a complex and not easily definable issue and anyone with «easy» answers in my view is not admitting the fallen and terrible condition of mankind in general and that as much as we would attempt to make categorical statements as to «all war is wrong» or «war is the right soultion» we are making statements that just cant stand up to either biblical exegesis or the reality of the world we live in.

As an example, from your point of view as a believer, I can assume you think atheists are wrong, and you are right in your belief that god exists.

And as far as the Jerusalem controversy, I would suggest that that debate was a good display of God giving a view of how men bring in false teaching, only to have God use his voices to make right a wrong view being introduced to the Church.

You think YOU are right, everyone else is wrong, and you refuse to listen to another point of view.

Indeed, in a world of many points of view, there is a deep philosophical problem involved in trying to defend the claim that one point of view is right and all others wrong when fundamental beliefs and values are involved.

We are two nations: one concentrated on rights and laws, the other on rights and wrongs; one radically individualistic and dedicated to the actualized self, the other communal and invoking the common good; one viewing law as the instrument of the will to power and license, the other affirming an objective moral order reflected in a Constitution to which we are obliged; one given to private satisfaction, the other to familial responsibility; one typically secular, the other typically religious; one elitist, the other populist.

But as I urged above, it would be wrong (in my judgment) to try to interpret all this too literally and logically; Prof. Hartshorne was right, I said, in saying that the symbol of the divine Triunity, like the «incarnation» and «atonement» as symbols, is much more appropriately retained as a symbol, as imaginative proclamation; it can then retain its indicative and suggestive value without our seeking to phrase it in the idiom of some particular philosophy or world view.

Furthermore, the entire point of my post was to show that even though I am a Christian and do not agree with the atheist view of God (which is to say the idea of the absense of God), I STILL support this soldier in their right to attend the ceremony and NOT have to bow their head, and believe that any Christian or other person who would force this soldier to do so by threat of removal from the ceremony, is just plain wrong.

If is a matter of what seems right or wrong and differing views on that then what determines morals, common consensus?

As to the substance of Mr. Redlich's comment, he is entirely right in his devotion to religious freedom, diversity, and peace, and, in my view, entirely wrong in his idea of how those great goods might be preserved and protected.

While I'll agree that much of the bible is stories and fables (Catholics don't typically view much of the old testament as hard fact, but as a way for God to teach mankind right from wrong and ways to live), even some atheists follow the teachings of Christ.

It is a critical lens of legitimacy through which the enlightened libertarian can view the world, and gives the libertarian the ability to take a stand on what he feels is right and wrong.

Avoiding commitment as to any specific attitude which the church and Christian men ought to adopt toward war when war comes, the conference report contented itself with exhibiting the various views which Christians actually hold on that subject and with saying that while the church could neither affirm that any one of these was right and the others wrong nor acquiesce in the permanent continuance of these differences, it should promote the study of the problem with a view to a better understanding of the purpose of God.

what they have to do is be professional about their line of work but they can simply view it as their work and if you do nt like their performance as employee of the brand, you can demand change and criticise but just being disappointed with the results do nt give the fans the right to insult on such a low level like some guys on here and in this kind of view insulting a man who worked 20 years absolutely professionally for a club is just downright wrong, i never said you shouldnt criticise him

Penelope Leach's views on overnights with dad are absurd and wrong Adrienne Burgess writes: The Fatherhood Institute, a charity established in 1999, does not fight for the rights of separated dads.

So, I, too, will view a divorce as a «failed marriage» if we all agree that divorce — like failure in general — leads to «new level of growth,» can lead us to «steppingstones to later success» and «rid (s) ourselves of the wrong turns on the way to the right one.»

Media can have too much power sometimes, remember they are not always an impartial voice of the world, they are usually telling it from one side's prospective, with that side's opinions and views (right or wrong).

While the right of the party have lectured Corbyn and the left for the past year about talking - down to voters, being «out of touch» and not understanding ordinary people's views, here Smith is saying he believes Labour should go into the 2020 election telling the 52 % of Leave voters they are simply wrong.

The post-Powellite far right are a lot more conflicted of course - having to argue that we destroyed our society 70 years ago («national suicide» said Powell: very conflicted, pretty resentful, but I am sure he was wrong, and in 2011 that view and vision offers us nothing except a tragic nihilism) and so can't be proud of the society we have become.

The First Lady, Mrs. Lordina Mahama says she has taken a serious view of attempts by «The New Statesman» newspaper, its Editor and Publishers to defame her in their publication of Wednesday, 27th January 2016 and has therefore written to the National Media Commission (NMC) seeking them to right the wrong that has been done to her.

«I have clear views about the importance of international justice, which we need to expand, and Britain pulling out of the European court will send all the wrong signals on the British commitment to expanding human rights around the world.»

I am essentially a supporter of Starmer's & Corbyn's line on the EU and believe that Labour needs to reserve the right to vote against a final deal if it is clearly contrary to the interests of British people as the party sees it, though complete opposition to Brexit at this stage would in my view be wrong.

Or maybe Amazon, I think, discovered that people wanted to view PDF files on the Kindle and their PDF browser is really terrible; and, in fact, [the] smaller Kindle couldn't view PDFs at all until a recent software update, so I do think that these manufacturers always make some choices about what people are going to want and what they don't want and find that some of those choices are right and some of those choices are just wrong.

«My view is that psychopaths have the intellectual capacity to know the rules of society and the difference between right and wrong — and they choose which rules to follow or ignore,» says Hare.

Instead of viewing the left and the right as either inherently correct or wrong, a more scientific approach is to recognize that liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral values.

Contrary to the poetic nature of «righting past wrongs» that some attribute to the de-extinction of passenger pigeons, I view the de-extinction of the passenger pigeon as a project seeded in our present and future; it is a pivotal exercise in thought stressing the recognition that we are the drivers of change on this planet and that we have the cognitive ability to take responsibility for the direction of that change.

I looked online and of course found many different views on how to train for a marathon, and of course plenty of debate between runners as to what was the right or wrong way to train, the similarities with the weight loss websites out there was very evident to me, It was hard to know what to do.

Many singles become caught in an other - directed view of dating, directing their efforts toward finding the right guy, only to become frustrated and jaded when they meet a bunch of Mr. Wrongs.

It becomes very clear through viewing the film and selected extra features later on that Fincher had a very specific vision with this film, and it seems he's taken the opportunity given by this special re-release to go back and right the wrongs of the past.

Anyway, even if you didn't said I was wrong, I think I'm not forcefully right either, it's mostly hypothesis and I find interesting to share differents point of view and develop them, so not everybody have to agree.

«Second difficulty is, sometimes, if they do disclose it, they disclose it in a way that prejudges it — i.e. «I'm right, you're wrong, it is a problem» — instead of treating it as their point of view, and then inviting [the teacher's] point of view.

How Principals of Autonomous Schools in Israel View Implementation of Decentralization and Restructuring Policy: Risks, Rights, and Wrongs

There is no one and only point of view, there is nothing right and nothing wrong, there exist love and that is all.

It is also a comical and entertaining account of A Man Called Ove and his peculiar ways... an honest man with strict principles who abhors «the men in white shirts» that have done him wrong, a man who fights for what's right, a man who will no longer be cheated out of a kroner, a man who eventually becomes (view spoiler)[a hero and loved by all.

It might be plausibly maintained that in almost every one of the leading controversies, past or present, in social philosophy, both sides were in the right in what they affirmed, though wrong in what they denied; and that if either could have been made to take the other's views in addition to its own, little more would have been needed to make its doctrine correct.

Although we canvassed the island from back to front, side to side, we were still able to thoroughly enjoy adct to the fullest... at one point, I sat alone, enjoying a cocktail, admiring the beautiful view of the surrounding islands, but also took the time to visually «inspect» the villa from my position just to pick out the things that weren't right, or didn't fit, on were the wrong color... I couldn't come up with anything... everything about the villa from the private entrance, to the «endless» pool, to the perfect positioning of the bedrooms, to the outside showers with incredible views, to the «common» area where we would all gather for drinks, to the beautiful structure of the landscaping... I could go on, and on, however, in a word, and I don't say this often, but adct is perfect.