Sentences with phrase «views of other religions»

That's been confusing to some, as he is inclusive in a mainline way (on LGBT issues, views of other religions, etc.), but talks about conversion in an evangelical way.

It should also be pointed Out that the memory - lane of dalits in re» member» ing their cultural values is blurred by the influences of world - view of other religions to which they converted later.

Not exact matches

Letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush from Thomas Jefferson Washington, April 21, 1803 Dear Sir, — In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798 - 99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Crhistain religion was sometimes our topic; and I the promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it.

@HotAirAce For those that do not want religion forced down their throat (even though I don't even remotely believe that to be the case), certainly have no problem trying to force their views on others and try to deny them them pursuit of their beliefs.

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».

I view religion at its core as a leveraging of fear (related to the supernatural) in order to get other people to do certain things.

It is what has lead me to my veiw that Atheism as a religion, the passion most Atheist have for their point of view from the start you may not fall in this category but I'm sure you know someone that does.The same applies to Christians that freak out on someone and start forcing their view on others, I see that as wrong also if someone asks or brings the debate to you then by all means debate but why be rude how does it help?

In fact, when the topic of teaching religion in schools crops up and you suggest to those pushing the idea that maybe it would be OK to teach religion in a comparative context, with many of the world's major religions examined objectively alongside each other, the creationist fundies are the ones yelling the loudest that that must never, ever be allowed — it's only their view that's welcome.

So, though southerneyes44 writes of Christian «appreciation of alternate views», there's a long and brutal history of Christians persecuting adherents of other religions, including the followers of Judaism, from which Christianity arose, during various European pogroms against Jews throughout many centuries, and adherents of other branches of Christianity.

Hence, part of the reason of the concept of the «separation of church and the government... or church and the secular,» so, no religion including Christianity can stomp on the rights of people to express themselves fully and in their own way... whether you agree, disagree or don't have an opinion one way or another on others view and comments... yes...?

But for many reasons Mormans are thier own religion and not Christian because thier view of the trinity, the holy spirit, and who God was is not consitent with what any other Christian really believes.

Imagine a day where christians respect the rights and views of others and actually leave religion in their churches.

First of all, as I said in my original post, there are many other factors that mold our views beyond our natural instincts (parents, religion, society, etc).

But if you insist on your point of view I would expect that you could be one of those intended with such operations agenda to bring religions to fighting each other in this same method world wide reducing God believers on the globe..?

I personally think religion should not be a factor.No one should ask the candidates what their religious views are and they should never mention them.Their religious preferences have absolutely no effect on what type of leader they will be.Unless they are some kind of a religious fanatic.I think it's time for an atheist.There was not a Christian president for over the first 50 years of our nations existence.And, I do not think there has been one since.If you look it up you will find not one of our founding fathers were Christian.Not even Jefferson.I know he wrote the Jefferson bible, but, that's just because he, like the other founding fathers, did not believe Jesus to be of divine decent.So, he kept his philosophy while removing all the mystical and dogmatic concepts.

Joan Bakewell, in the February 6th edition of The Times, decided that the Pope's decision to lift decrees of excommunication from four Lefebvrist bishops, one of whom absurdly denies the historical veracity of the mass extermination of Jews during the Second World War, should be linked to his Regensburg Address: in her view this was a sign of an increased antagonism on the part of the Vatican towards other religions.

Other theologians, of course, have approached the study of the history of religions from a theological point of view, and their theology has been influenced by what they have learned.

The «prevailing Christian view» until relitively recently, would have been against any notion of the rapture, the equality of women, the emancipation of slaves, and a host of other things that most Christians today look back on with some disgust being attached to their religion's history.

I never appreciated his use of gratuitous nude pictures he used earlier on to increase his numbers... but I saw it for what it was... I can also see why my husband and I'm sure others, would be offended by what they see & read here if this is not their view of church & religion.

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.

Evangelical leaders constantly warn that young people are deserting churches; pastors struggle to address changing views on homosexuality; and others wonder how evangelicals can remain relevant when a growing number of Americans refuse to identify with any religion.

too true; you're right, we are holistic people in a holistic world living holistic lives and political theory, religion, ethics, behavior, psychology, these and many others are all so inextricably intertwined with each other that it may be better to think of them as different views of the same object rather than distinct objects that are inter-related (using «object» here, of course, metaphorically)

From Origen's hope that salvation will eventually be received by all, to Karl Rahner's assertion that other religions can serve as pointers to Christ, to Clark Pinnock's biblical case for a more optimistic view of salvation, I've found that tucked away in the dusty corners of Christian libraries is a wealth of scholarship on the subject.

The fact that these principles have such great similarity to principles of obligation found in other religions and philosophies has led many theologians to believe that what is unique about Christian principles of obligation is not so much their context as the particular view of the world that follows from the metaphors and stories which surround them and which are found in the Christian drama.

You along with other seem to have bridged the two together when it comes to Muslims, but rightfully failed to do so when terrorists of other religous backgrounds commit acts of terrorism on some ill - guided views of their religion.

I am tired of how people who believe in their own «gods» try to shove religion down other peoples throat, what I mean is if your religion doen not let you support guns then don't support it but also don't try to change it for everyone else who doesn't see it your way, I don't go around asking for you all's religion to remove crosses from public view because I don't believe and to remove the bible from public places (i.e. Hotels, Bookstores, etc.) so it can only be seen in their respective places of workship, Remember WE ALL ARE BORN ATHEIST, YOU ARE NOT BORN WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A GOD, YOUR PARENTS HAVE TO TELL YOU THERE IS A GOD, A DEVIL, HEAVEN AND EARTH... THEN IT BEGINGS.

We Americans, religious and secular both, have powerful fundamental views about religion that put radical Islam in a certain context, one that prevents us from understanding how unlike other American religious expressions it is — and how much of a threat it is to the civil order.

It seems that for some their idea of freedom of religion is the freedom for them to impose their personal religious views on others through law thus limiting the freedom of religion of others.

I could fill a large hotel full of the most World's most «learnerd» Jewish, Christian and Islamic theological scholars (to take the, inaptly named, monothistic religions) and they would be unable to agree on anything other than some nauseating throw away line like «we should all rewspect each other's views»».

Their view on women, of other religion and encouragement of violence against LGBT classifies it as a cult.

On issues such as women in church leadership, and other religions, we are free to come to a «developed, or even different, view» from what we find in the canon, just like William Wilberforce did with slavery; but that is ok, because the word of God is «ultimately a person, not a manuscript».

With all of God's first born son (s) being an established view among our many religious constabularies, many of one - God religions are dead - set against each others» claims as to which religious convictions are truly the most righteous.

Besides being illegal, it is also one of the most divisive issues of our time, when one religion attempts to force a belief system on others who have a differing view.

as your examples of how all» @Chuckles: Tyrants have always viewed other religions as threats and tried to eradicate them.

Such things might be included here as natural theology (the making of inferences about God from a study of the natural world); the teachings of other great religions — again, to the extent they are compatible; or even the Old Testament prophets, depending on how you view their relationship to Jesus.

Needless to say, in the weeks leading up to Pope Benedict XVI's recent pilgrimage to Great Britain I had little expectation that my English kin would hold anything other than a dim view of the entire affair as being another example of religion wasting money, cloggingtraffic in central London, and no doubt also harming the environment.

In areas with another religion in dominance, that other religion (and its holy writings) is used to keep people in line and «in their place» and sometimes includes the persecution of those with minority views including Christians.

To set the stage for considering religion from a cosmological point of view, Whitehead writes, «The most general formulation of the religious problem is the question whether the process of the temporal world passes into the formation of other actualities, bound together in an order in which novelty does not mean loss.»

Both are constitutional ideals which should be approximated as nearly as possible while respecting other important principles, Separation should be viewed as a development friendly to religion in a heterogeneous society rather than as a hostile turn of events.

Thus the non-Christian religions, and even other world views such as Marxism, may be seen to be genuinely workings of God among humanity, since in them enough is granted to provide a sense of significance or value in human life and to learn to live in love, seek justice, do one's duty, and follow truth and goodness and beauty.

All other gods and human religions regardless of the nature attempt to express what it is to live in view of that knowledge that points to purpose for our existence.

Two (Noel and Gier) discuss Altizer's relation to other nontraditional options for religious thought, and two are written by historians of religions (King and Eliade), who view Altizer in perspectives provided by the discipline in which he did his doctoral study.

also a bit contradictory — atheists often cite religion pushing their views onto others as one of its major problems.

Period.How can the followers of any religion such as this long tolerate the views of others??

But my experience with religion is that people tend to stick with others that share their beliefs and often take a negative view of those who don't share their beliefs.

His ecumenism is, most consciously, an «ecumenical ecumenism «37 and aims at including not only other churches but also other religions in view of the deepness of the Cosmotheandric Reality.38 Even more than with Leonardo Boff, the theology of Raimon Panikkar is not limited to the specific context, in this case Indian.

and relight old fires of hatred and pain, I would worry about the safety too of the good American Muslims, although it was radicals to have a Mosque where 3,000 were killed seems to me to rub salt in wounds for many, I don't really understand what happened to the plans of statues and tributes to those lost in 911, other than a money factor.It seems like this Mosque will be viewed as a Trojan horse, no religion would want a house of worship to be a reminder of hatred.it should be a place reminding the world of peace and love if it's a place of worship, and in that location it will not bring a feeling of peace.

What has now happened to the newest generation's view on thier religion & that of others is «information» and the sharing of all that «e-information» easily & quickly.

The intolerance of other views or interpretations proves what is wrong with organised religion

what is necessary and a very important change for us today and the future is our conscience, and this requires global consciousness necessary for our long term needs and survival, we need a faith that will compel us to unite to address the problems of survival, in the future, a few thousand years from now the glacial period cycle is due, earth will no longer be hospitable and we either have to immigrate to other planets or, develope a system that will protect us, the natural calamities like floods, typhoons, sub zero temperatures, will become our big problem in the future, so we need a religion that will guide our conscience from simplistic self survival towards a more holistic view of reality.Our oneness with ourselves and Him is the primary tenets or doctrines of this religion.