Sentences with phrase «with religious texts»

With regards to the response you had, there were many «scientific» texts that had agreement with the religious texts.

The church contains a library filled with religious texts in the connected monastery, but a main interest of the church is below the building itself.

That data directly conflicts with religious texts and you think it is an attack on religion?

There are many, many schools which prohibit any and all music with a religious text from their curricula and prohibit teachers from programming such music for concerts no matter how balanced the program may be (that is, it encompasses secular and sacred, accompanied and unaccompanied, difficult and easy, music in a variety of styles and from a variety of musical eras.

You are advocating censoring education by prohibiting instructors who ARE musically knowledgeable from giving students a well - rounded and balanced musical experience by pretending that there was no music of value that was composed with a religious text or through the pat ronage of the church.

Should students never perform any music with a religious text, even if done in a secular setting and with the purpose of providing a complete education, not for the purpose of worship or of promoting a particular belief?

Not exact matches

Lichtenfeld covers all the basics: stay active and healthy, exercise, play sports, eat right, socialize a lot with family and friends, meet new friends, keep learning, do volunteer work, be involved in your community, run for office, attend church or other religious / spiritual activities, read books and newspapers, check your email and text your friends.

If there is a perfect being that created the universe and believes in interfering with our world (through Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha... whatever you believe), then why are all religious texts so flawed and flimsy?

I also have a copy of Jewish religious texts, Islamic texts and a few other faiths texts and can speak intelligently with the devout of any of them and have done so.

Don't allow religious philosophy to intrude into biology classrooms and texts, they say, for that is to soil the sacred precincts of science, which must be reserved for hypotheses that can be rigorously tested and confronted with data.

You said, «Religious texts should NOT «always be taken with a grain of salt.»

Religious texts should NOT «always be taken with a grain of salt.»

He wanted to show us that God's role in those violent religious texts is not in the inflicting of pain and suffering of others, but in receiving and suffering that pain along with us.

I have a theory that SBNRs are so because one or more or a combination of the following: (1) they can't justify their spiritual texts - and so they try to remove themselves from gory genocidal tales, misogyny and anecdotal professions of a man / god, (2) can't defend and are turned off by organized religious history (which encompasses the overwhelming majority of spiritual experiences)- which is simply rife with cruelty, criminal behavior and even modern day cruel - ignorant ostracization, (3) are unable to separate ethics from their respective religious moral code - they, like many theists on this board, wouldn't know how to think ethically because they think the genesis of morality resides in their respective spiritual guides / traditions and (4) are unable to separate from the communal (social) benefits of their respective religion (many atheists aren't either).

You can not point to any one and say this is the right one (with any authority other than «what you want to believe») Every religious text I've ever read is clearly written via the various perceptions of man, not some divine being.

The type of atheists, like most on this post, that continue with the ridiculous assertion that there can be nothing greater than us that exists above or outside of our little physical realm, are simply either intellectually stunted individuals, or more likely, bitter people who have gotten their panties in a bunch because some religious text contains some apparent condemnation of their lifestyle.

I don't think he can be considered a Christian just because he agrees with some passages from the bible - they may have well come from any other religious text.

if it is all «context» and can be so subjectively read, there is either NO authorial intent (and therefore no permanent meaning) or you are assuming a larger foundation of truth to read along with the text (but that invites all the criticism you are levying against the religious).

The fact is that * both * religious texts have passages that can be read as justification for abhorrent acts, and so * both * religious traditions have a responsibility to examine and deal with those issues.

no proof the bible quran or any other religious text has anything to do with God.

It is, in particular, the second of evangelicalism's two tenets, i. e., Biblical authority, that sets evangelicals off from their fellow Christians.8 Over against those wanting to make tradition co-normative with Scripture; over against those wanting to update Christianity by conforming it to the current philosophical trends; over against those who view Biblical authority selectively and dissent from what they find unreasonable; over against those who would understand Biblical authority primarily in terms of its writers» religious sensitivity or their proximity to the primal originating events of the faith; over against those who would consider Biblical authority subjectively, stressing the effect on the reader, not the quality of the source — over against all these, evangelicals believe the Biblical text as written to be totally authoritative in all that it affirms.

If you refute Buddhism with an ancient religious text like the Bible, can I refute Christianity with my ancient religious text?

Proud of their secular society, most Japanese aren't religious in the way Americans are: They tend not to identify with a single tradition nor study religious texts.

In texts and images, religious meaning bonded with physical experience to form a singularly powerful symbol.

There are those who consider themselves Christian, Buddhist, etc in a religious sense who have never read sacred texts associated with their religion.

All the contradictions, inaccuracies, and just plain insanity that the Bible and other religious texts contain is ignored and replaced with the idea of «Faith».

Since the publication of this text, Hitchens has traveled the country debating a series of religious thinkers — Christian, Muslim and Jewish — meeting them with an extremely swift mind and wickedly barbed tongue.

The alterity of the text, however, is not to be identified with the socio - cultural, economic or religious realities which its linguistic code and repertoire reflect.

Arguements based on any religious text will not be persuasive to someone who is not of that faith and, as he pointed out, those who are of that faith will likely already agree with the arguement.

In 1996, the Smithsonian Institute issued a statement addressing claims made in the Book of Mormon, stating that the text is primarily a religious text and that archeologists affiliated with the institute found «no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book».

Religious readers, on the other hand, assume they have come into the presence of a text with inexhaustible depth.

Without proclamation, the symbols (crossresurrection - incarnation) lose their tensive, religious reality and become occasions for other kinds of reflection... Only with a sense of the religious - event reality named proclamation is the New Testament recognized anew as the Christian classic text, the scripture.

Education in religious text does not give you a relationship with God it gives you knowledge not even understanding of the deeper things of the Bible.

One who is armed with historical knowledge may silently slip into the role of a superior modern man who condescendingly reads ancient religious texts.

Unity in the oikoumene is a continuous task, as Panikkar well stated in an early text: «Ecumenism has to start with suffering arising from diversity; in a further step, it should unveil the deeper, common striving; and it could well culminate in the religious effort to bring closer this unity of Reality.

in the public domain, then I'm sure you are o.k. with the Muslim's putting up their *) everywhere they want, and the Jews putting up their «star of david» and the Buddhists, putting Buddha everywhere, and the Hindu's putting up all of their gods, and goddesses, along with all the rest of the religions of the world and their religious imagery / symbols / texts, etc...

During these two years, most of the influential texts of the council were forged into their final form: the Constitutions on the Church (Lumen Gentium), divine revelation (Dei Verbum), and the Church in the modern world (Gaudium et Spes), along with the decree on ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) and the declarations on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and on the Church and non-Christian religions (Nostra Aetate).

Now that I've read some other religious texts and explored a relationship with God outside of institutionalized church I now hear and see God's truth in many things.

Those Christians who give a privileged status to the King James translation might have religious problems with war, capital punishment, etc., but «the world's Jews» — at least those who can read the original Hebrew text — read the Commandment as «You shall not murder».

Rather, they discuss small portions of religious texts with an eye toward discovering how these texts apply to their personal lives.

These biblical texts, with their depictions of Amalek and the Canaanites as subhuman, were not lost to religious authorities and zealots throughout history: During the Crusades, Pope Urban II considered Muslim conquerors of Jerusalem to be Amalek.

This may move Christian worship beyond the preoccupation with Scriptural texts and literary forms of prayer to a concern with the spontaneous religious life of its daily practitioners.

This means that a traditional religious education provides no independent language skills with which to read the text critically.

I don't have any axe to grind if you wish to square your favorite religious text with modern science by assuming this or that non-literalist interpretation.

Many religious texts are written with tales of magic and exageration to draw people in so they eventually get down to the deeper meanings and more life useful stuff.

But just acknowledge that you can do the same with other religious texts as well and if you REALLY want to get to the meat of modern scientific understanding, go straight to the scientific sources.

Jesus responds with a text from Isaiah that condemns those who comply with religious forms while «their hearts are far from me.»

And what do Locke and Spinoza have to do with the two religious visionary texts, or a bereaved mother's contemporary poems?

As well as polemics Luther was writing his pastoral theology, his Fourteen Consolations for the very ill Elector, and a text on The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, compared in its nature as a fellowship event with the degenerate «religious» fellowship of the craft brotherhoods.

Yes, they could envisage that terrible moment of death very well, with a priest bawling religious texts into the poor dying man's ear.