Sentences with phrase «god as the conclusion»

I have decided (for now anyway) that how we do a thing is as much a part of the redemptive story of God as the conclusion of it all.

Not exact matches

As they prefer a life of ease here on earth, and deliberately pervert their own mind, ignoring the conclusion «Creation - Creator», they become mad and claim there would be no God.

Meanwhile, to Hawking's supporters who suggest that I am not owning up to his scientific «proofs,» I believe airwx has already said it best for me — he's a THEORETICAL physicist, and having read some of his work, I'm smart enough to know that much of what he says about God is an exercise in jumping to conclusions, even as sound as much of his scientific work is.

Having said that I'd suggest that the fact that Jesus, THE priest, is male bears out, in part (but not all pervadingly), a qualified conclusion that «God thinks that we can relate to him best as we relate to a male» in that Jesus is the male that we relate to God through.

Sure it can fred... it can be argued that your god can not give verifiable proof of his existence and therefore it would unreasonable, illogical and fallacious to do as you do and assume the conclusion.

@ Derrick Yu, This actually may come as a shocker, but there are believers out there who still continue to ask questions about God, about the Universe, and so forth, and unlike certain atheists out there who if they can't get definite answers to just come to conclusions that can not be verified like conclude that there is no God, at least there are believers out there who at least are willing to at least be open to the possibility that there is a God, and from there they develop their faith, which even though is not a perfect knowledge, at least can help keep those minds open, unlike certain atheists who take the easy way out and convincing themselves that it is a fact that there is no God, when in reality it is not a fact at all.

As the church and our interactions with God are often compared to a marriage, I've come to this conclusion:

However, I was definitely confused and also uninformed about the implications or logical conclusions of Calvinism, such as the fact that if Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, since He, according to Calvin, predetermined every single little thing that has ever happened in history, including the sins of every man, including Adam!

Then you continue to justify that easy out conclusion by putting God in the same category as Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Flying Spagetti Monster since you can't prove that they don't exist and it's ridiculous to believe in those ergo that automatically means that is just as ridiculous to believe in a God, like a one conclusion fits all scenario even though that scenario still doesn't change the fact that you are concluding something that can not be proven.

If he is just trying to «act» as though there are no gods he is proceeding from a position of belief and the experiment can not come to any valid conclusions.

At the end of his speech concerning the congressional debt crisis, President Obama believably said, «God bless the United States of America,» as if it's a foregone conclusion.

Point three: God is all mighty — True 4 Conclusion: God can do as he Pleases — Not True

A monistic, panentheistic position can not avoid this conclusion.29 In a physical, biological, historico - cultural evolutionary process as complex as the universe, much that is evil from various perspectives will occur, and if one sees this process as God's self - expression, then God is involved in evil.

I've never understood why, when I say that a church should have no vision, some people leap to the conclusion that this means, as someone once said to me, that «You just sit by the phone all day waiting for God to call.»

Conclusion: for us to explain how a loving God could cause us to suffer as a test, we have to assume that God's knowledge is limited, we have to explain the apparently random selection of people to be tested, and we have to postulate a complicated system of rewards in the life to come in order for the different degrees of severity of the test to be appropriately rewarded.

But instead, he lays hold of Fuchs» concept of Jesus» conduct as God's goodness in action, and comes to the conclusion that Jesus» message is after all grace, i.e. «after all a hidden or secret Christian preaching»: «Such calls for decision as Matt.

Quite the contrary, its purpose is to argue that the fundamental Thomist vision of finite existence as pointing to its self - sufficient cause is fully compatible with a doctrine of God that can embody the real strengths of the Thomist position without entailing its religiously and logically unsatisfactory conclusions.

If, as Christians believe, all truth ultimately comes from God through Jesus Christ, then all roads of worldly enquiry should lead back towards the same ultimate source and conclusion, the truth of the Word.

It seems that Al Mohler is fine with Christians loving God with their minds so long as they reach the same conclusions that he has.

Any person who does this I can respect whatever conclusion they reach, it's the people who have always been one thing or another and their cognitive dissonance and absolute refusal to accept disbelief in god as an alternative in any capacity that I have beef with.

I believe it is the responsibility of all those who disagree with Richard Dawkins» rather superficial and juvenile conclusions about the biblical text, to create space for a deeper discussion around the way in which we work with it and, as a consequence, who we understand God to be.

That said, the case has been made that if the Christian god exists, then «God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans», with the conclusion that» [e] xisting scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations.&raqgod exists, then «God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans», with the conclusion that» [e] xisting scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations.&raqGod should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans», with the conclusion that» [e] xisting scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations.&raqGod is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations.»

I agree that we need to accept that we can not at present prove the existence of God, and therefor should not proceed in our communications with non-believers as if it is simply a foregone conclusion.

But this «Therefore» doesn't make sense if you look a the end of chapter 11, where Paul has digressed in a lengthy doxology, which while it discusses intriguing mysteries of God and praises God, doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that we should present ourselves as living sacrifices to him, but if you read into that «οὖν» an «as I was saying earlier», you can see that before the doxology he issued an important warning in Romans 11:22 — if God is willing enough to be so severe as to cut of the natural branches (the Jews) he will certainly be willing to cut of the ones that have been grafted on (the Gentiles); Romans 12:1 - 2 is a very logical «therefore» to follow Romans 11:21 - 24.

If, as seems implied by his conclusion, Rabbi Novak prays for the wholehearted repentance of murderers like Osama bin Laden, or of Yasir Arafat, I wonder how he could ask God daily for the immediate destruction of the terribly wicked.

Jumping to the conclusion that «ripples in space time» are proof of god as creator of the universe reveals Ms Wickman's true bias.

The conclusion so far: God must have aesthetic experiences and these must involve enjoyment of non-divine as well as divine experiences.

I think I agree with the conclusion and would in some way renovate the path to get there — because as a Christian, I think all other paths to God lead to God - in - his - wrath and not to God - in - His - eternal - love.

It's curious that you believe what God would do or not do — How do you come to the conclusion that you know with such certainty that you could claim it as if it were perfectly true?

While some might argue that those who are not in relationship with their creator have lost that image, as is evidenced by what we may believe to be their obvious sin, many of us have come to another conclusion — that all people continue to bear the image of God in some sense.

My conclusion here will be that if there were a God and if he were viewed as having the power to influence events at this level at all, then we would have to conclude that the world ought to be a very different place than it in fact is.

The conclusion I want to pull out of these considerations is this: if there is at least one actual entity in the world characterized by at least one eternal object, one specific form of definiteness, then this actual entity provides all the ontological ground required for the realm of eternal objects — an appeal to God is not necessary.11 And, indeed, in Whitehead, as in Aristotle, there is an eternity and an abeternity of becoming so that within the terms of the system it is inconceivable that there be any region of the extensive continuum, no matter how far it be extended fore or aft, where there is not a generation of actual entities exhibiting concrete forms of definiteness.

6:24 (cf. 26:10, the interpretative conclusion of a comparable cultic confession in 26:5 - 9) «And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as at this day.»

They think that Edwards, believing in government by God, must have derived from that premise the conclusion that therefore preachers were his lieutenants on earth and should be recognized as gods.

The conclusion of our treatment has been a stress upon God as recipient, who takes into himself, and by thus receiving gives abiding value to, what happens in the created order.

At the level of God's reconciling the world to himself through Jesus Christ, reconciling is both a conclusion and a once - for - all event as well as a process.

It should not be surprising then that Whitehead thought of God as a single actual entity immune to the possibility of loss.59 At least William Christian sees this as the proper Whiteheadian view.60 Nevertheless, Christian's position is challenged by Ivor Leclerc, who argues, in agreement with Hartshorne, that Christian's conclusion is incompatible with the categoreal scheme elaborated in chapter two of Process and Reality.61 Here, according to Leclerc, Whitehead «makes clear» that the category of «subjective perishing» is «necessarily applicable to every actual entity whatever, including God.»

As we come to the end of Luke 6, and the conclusion to Christ's discipleship manual, we learn that this is exactly what God wants us to do in our own lives.

For any scientist to say «I believe I found god» is against the way a research project is to be conducted, meaning, you can not jump to conclusions, as that is unscientific.

I want to know if they think physicist Paul Davie is right about the obvious creation of universe governing physical laws, if Einstein was right in a God presence and what they think about quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, where one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion.

As with the previous usage of this summary conclusion in Matthew 20:16, Jesus is not saying anything one way or another about how God sovereignly chose some people to go to heaven while others go to hell.

I have asked God for clear understanding on baptism MANY times and still find myself in a pickle over it so conclusion is «do what they that were mentioned as saved did» I already TRUST IN CHRIST as my savior, knowing I can not earn my salvation by works or deeds.

The current tradition of Elijah's presence in heaven meant that as soon as the disciples reached the conclusion that, because of his sacrificial death, Jesus was deserving of an even higher honor than Elijah, it was but a logical step to conclude that God had exalted the crucified Jesus and raised him to heaven to join Elijah and Moses.

When, for instance, I only thought about God — when He existed only in my mind as a belief — I could reach Him only as an intellectual conclusion.

To draw this conclusion would be a kerygmatic theological Docetism, or even a denial of faith in God as Creator, under whose worldly rule even the historian does his service as a scholar.

It is unequivocally wrong for a Christian to kill wantonly, or without deep soul - searching leading to the conclusion that love requires it as the will of God.

«We speak on this subject very cautiously and diffidently,» he writes, «rather by way of discussion than coming to definite conclusions... We suppose that the goodness of God will restore the whole creation to unity in the end... If anyone thinks that matter will be utterly destroyed, it passes my comprehension how all these substances can live and exist without material bodies, since to live without material substance is the privilege of God alone... Another perhaps may say that in the consummation all matter will be so purified that it may be thought of as a kind of ethereal substance... But only God knows.»

For example, by March 1926, in Religion in the Making, Whitehead had come to the conclusion that God could be conceived either as a principle or as a person.

Technically speaking, the hope is that I'd arrive at that conclusion because of having been trained in the school of thought that sees them as gifts from God, image - bearers, and that dying for another is to demonstrate and glorify the cross.

No proof texting needed: I don't grant the premise «God ordained all things» (at least not as you seem to be defining it), therefore the conclusion is wrong.