Sentences with phrase «what doctrines you believed»

He did not ask men what doctrines they believed.

Not exact matches

what you believe is not «biblically based», it's indoctrination about ideas that came from warping and exagerating ideas that existed in «pagan» (not actually the correct term but good for this purpose) mythologies, and the evil imaginations of men like Dante and those who desired to see those they considered inferior in doctrine, belief, religion or culture in torture.

since this woman entered a Catholic Church to be a part of their service of worship, she shouldn't be surprised that they follow the doctrine they believe in — namely, that someone openly unrepentant of what the Catholic Church teaches is sin should not partake of communion.

Since Latter - day Saints believe in continuing, modern revelation, that means that we follow what is in the canonized scriptures (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) AND whatever our current leaders teach.

But as it is, they all agree on the math and chemistry they utilize, but the believers among them believe in various different gods and doctrines and what not.

There are what appears to some, verses that appear to support Calvinistic doctrine, however, when the book is read as a whole (John) the overwhelming impression is «believe and live».

Also, doctrine does not change, only what people choose to follow at one time or another (being God's word and all, its immutable, should you believe the Bible).

Ella believes Christians must stand up to what she calls «the doctrines that allow these gangs to continue».

This, I believe, is what the apostle Paul meant when he instructed Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope --(not the certainty, not the doctrine, not the logic....

I don't care what anyone claims to believe, whether they can recite doctrine and verse, whether they hang with the right crowds, write the top - selling books, whether they can work up a quivering lip and an impassioned voice at the conference as they call us to repentance or wholeness in Christ or [fill in blank].

Being a Catholic, says Greeley, is a matter of what one believes, in the sense of doctrines affirmed.

In the end we all need to find some peace in what we believe beyond core doctrines.

If you do not believe that is an essential doctrine, what is?

To be sure, we have an expanded canon of Scripture, but nothing within the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price contradicts what is taught in the Bible regarding the virgin birth (which, by the way, we definitely believe in), teachings, miracles, atoning sacrifice, or bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

On the other hand, there were other men who disagreed: Tertullian, who believed that the soul would live on forever, that the wicked would suffer misery in proportion to the righteous» reward; St. Augustine, who came up with the doctrines of Original Sin and Predestination (some would be saved, the rest would be damned); and Jerome, who would end up retranslating the Latin Bible into what would become the Latin Vulgate and would twist various scriptures that talked about eonian chastening into teaching eternal torment.

Though the notion of an immortal soul is what pastors and priests preach in churches, since that is what people want so much to believe, many modern theologians reject the view that the doctrine of the immortal soul has always been part of Judaism.

Until we can contact aliens from another planet who also believe in the exact same God you do what are we to assume but that God is a doctrine of this world alone?

Such a history does not only exist because a very great deal of time and theological development and clarification was needed in some cases before the Church's awareness of its belief had finally fought its way to a clear realization that such and such a definite doctrine of the Church is really contained in divine revelation, is a genuine expression of what has always been globally believed or an obligatory defence against heretical misinterpretation of what has been handed down.

In the case of the first Christians, they had the important challenge not only of formulating Christian doctrine which was faithful to what had been experienced by the believing community, but also of weeding out doctrines which could not be considered part of the Christian experience.

Roman Catholicism makes it very easy... by any orthodox standards, you believe what the church has laid down in its cannons and doctrine, or you aren't truly a Roman Catholic in good standing.

We speak of «the doctrine of the atonement,» «the doctrine of Christ,» or «the doctrine of God,» and what we have in mind is the collective testimony from the various biblical authors as to what should be believed about the atonement, about Christ, and about God.

Maybe you should read up on their doctrine before spouting out what you believe.

(a) Religion tells people not only what they should believe, but what they are morally obliged to believe on pain of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads;

Of the Bible she wrote, «I regard these writings as histories consisting of mingled truth and fiction, and while I admire and cherish much of what I believe to have been the moral teaching of Jesus himself, I consider the system of doctrines built upon the facts of his life... to be most dishonorable to God and most pernicious in its influence on individual and social happiness.»

So then, I take it that this is just a nice structured chat about what a person believes, what the United Church of Canada (UCC) believes, and about the essential doctrines of the UCC triumphing over, or changing to, or accommodating the essential doctrines of the individual.

(a) Christianity tells people not only what they should believe, but what they MUST believe under threat of «burning in hell» or other of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them;

(a) Religion tells people not only what they should believe, but what they must believe under threat of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them;

That is what individuals DO N'T want, they don't want a rigid set of doctrine or beliefs; they want to feel connected to others and themselves and the world through respect and compassion, not flog an ideology that tells them what to believe and how to act and on what basis to judge and often condemn others.

All these things lead me to believe that Obama's faith, at a minimum, isn't in alignment with what Christian doctrine teaches.

(a) Religion tells people not only what they should believe, but what they MUST believe under threat of «burning in hell» or other of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them;

You would agree then that the problem is not with the doctrine but with people who are not being «imitators of God» in how they are using what they believe?

Emergent evangelicals had bumped up against the limits of what George Lindbeck has called their «cognitive - propositional» approach to doctrine — faith as assent to propositional truths — but unlike earlier generations they no longer believed their only other option was to become traditionally «liberal.»

I don't deny that wrong decisions were made at probably all of the councils at some point, but of the councils that truly shaped Christianity, the seven ecumenical councils, while they are ridden with strife and political maneuvering as well as true Christian devotion and worship, I believe that most of what they decided in terms of doctrine is not wrong.

They believe this is what J. Smith did — bring back the doctrines of Christ.

I was surprised and concerned that she rejected what I believed to be a cornerstone doctrine.

Boff has undertaken the task of formulating, based on the general ecumenical consensus — that it is the triune God in whom Christians believe and that it is necessary to reflect theologically on this — what are, in his perspective, the contextually relevant implications of this doctrine.

He presented to the Church of his day, after much dialogue and discussion, a doctrine of Original Sin which the Church recognised as true in all essentials to what she did in fact believe.

If so, what leads you to believe that this issue is essential doctrine for salvation as opposed to an area where two committed followers of Christ can reasonably disagree?

This revolutionary doctrine of what is really (temporally) prior in experience means that Whitehead believes that in most philosophy «experience has been explained in a thoroughly topsy - turvy fashion, the wrong end first» (PR 246).

Using a biblical principle to prove what you don't believe is a biblical doctrine.

It is easier to talk about what Christians believe, the truth of the gospel formulated in creeds and doctrines.

One of the questions put to the respondents focused on the doctrine of Israel's election: «In what sense do you believe that the Jews are the chosen people of God?»

Brugger's goal is to suggest ways to more fully develop what he believes is a development of doctrine and thus close that gap.

It provides what Mill's doctrine of different qualities of pleasure requires, namely, a broader conceptual framework for evaluating experience than that proposed by Bentham, and, I believe, a more attractive criterion than the experienced judges» test.

What happened later was a clarification of language and terminology used to describe the doctrine in response to those who did not believe it.

Believe me, atheists are well aware of the contradictions among the Protestants, and the fighint over what is sound doctrine and what is not gets their attention.

(a) Religion tells people not only what they should believe, but what they are morally obliged to believe on pain of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them;

When people expect to get history, science, doctrine, and ethics out of the Bible, but end up with nothing of the sort, or what they do get does not agree with science, history, or the doctrine of others, they either reject the whole thing as fiction, or they blindly believe and obey what they read, because they don't know what else to do with the text.

@OnlyOne, «what do you call someone that finds it necessary to get in your face and noisily proclaim, via billboards, lawsuits, and other means, about how strongly they DO N'T believe in a God,» Fundamentalist, usually means a «demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines», which Atheism does not have.

I am (a) A victim of child molestation (b) A r.ape victim trying to recover (c) A mental patient with paranoid delusions (d) A Christian The only discipline known to often cause people to kill others they have never met and / or to commit suicide in its furtherance is: (a) Architecture; (b) Philosophy; (c) Archeology; or (d) Religion What is it that most differentiates science and all other intellectual disciplines from religion: (a) Religion tells people not only what they should believe, but what they are morally obliged to believe on pain of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them; (b) Religion can make a statement, such as «there is a composite god comprised of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit», and be totally immune from experimentation and challenge, whereas science can only make factual assertions when supported by considerable evidence; (c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas religion is regional and a person's religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than an accident of birth; or (d) All of the abWhat is it that most differentiates science and all other intellectual disciplines from religion: (a) Religion tells people not only what they should believe, but what they are morally obliged to believe on pain of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them; (b) Religion can make a statement, such as «there is a composite god comprised of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit», and be totally immune from experimentation and challenge, whereas science can only make factual assertions when supported by considerable evidence; (c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas religion is regional and a person's religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than an accident of birth; or (d) All of the abwhat they should believe, but what they are morally obliged to believe on pain of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them; (b) Religion can make a statement, such as «there is a composite god comprised of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit», and be totally immune from experimentation and challenge, whereas science can only make factual assertions when supported by considerable evidence; (c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas religion is regional and a person's religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than an accident of birth; or (d) All of the abwhat they are morally obliged to believe on pain of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them; (b) Religion can make a statement, such as «there is a composite god comprised of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit», and be totally immune from experimentation and challenge, whereas science can only make factual assertions when supported by considerable evidence; (c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas religion is regional and a person's religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than an accident of birth; or (d) All of the above.