Sentences with phrase «god experiences all events»

«Mutual immediacy» may be read as simply referring to God's feelings, namely, that God experiences every event objectively, but that experiencing is now still going on in the divine present, no matter how distantly past an event may have come into beings.

Although God experiences each event (and all events together) to the fullest degree possible, this does not mean that God can intervene directly to make any event turn out one way or the other.

As explained earlier, God experiences every event fully and sees in that event all the possibilities that could flow from it for subsequent, continuous experience.

Not exact matches

@fimilleur from time to time mankind experiences the presence of God, there have been and continue to be events that testify to the presence of Him.The multiple gods you continually point to have an unique difference from the God who first revealed His presence to ancient men i.e. the Hebrews.The particular gods you mention roman etc. are all man made and in many instances men themselves i.e. hercules, but even the ancient greeks realized the limitations of their understanding and included an «unknown» God in their worship structure.many cultures did likewise, having a glimpse of God but not the fullness of understanding that was given to the Jews.Whether or not «we» believe, does not alter the fact that God exists as an unique being, whether or not «we» acknowledge Him «we» will stand before Him.You do not choose to understand, but we are actually standing in His presence right now as He is much bigger than the doctrines and knowledge man ascribes to Him those things you find so questionable are the misconceptions and misrepresentations of God made by men throughout history.

I bring with me 172 witnesses that also experienced the same conversion on separate subsequent events and I can attest to their changed lives and new found ability to see the hand of God which they previously rejected.

6 I do not want to foreclose other possibilities such as that Jesus» presence is mediated by God or is that of the risen Jesus who is now enjoying new experiences in «heaven,» but this essay deals only with the re-presentation of past events.

This time, the cycle was broken by an event that Johnson describes as a mystical experience in which God broke through and asked, «Why are you fighting me?»

I occasionally find myself at a loose end when I am experiencing something exception (like a happy moment / event or hear something that is very sad and I then find myself deferring to god)... but that's not worship I guess.

But if God cares, then to some degree the total experience that is God is affected by contingent events and is itself contingent.

The Scottish religious education syllabus, This Is Our Faith, describes the communication of the Faith in the classroom as «an event of grace, realised in the encounter of the Word of God with the experience of the person.»

If, however, we define life in terms of the capacity to respond selectively to events, a conception of God that allows some contingent elements in his experience will permit us to apply the term «life» to God univocally.

True, every man today who is open to experience knows that God is absent, but only the Christian knows that God is dead, that the death of God is a final and irrevocable event, and that God's death has actualized in our history a new and liberated humanity.

But we can say at least this: the essential meaning of the concept of the miraculous, as this has been used in traditional theology, is grounded in the keen awareness men have of the unexpected and unprecedented experiences and happenings, the novel and hence the unusually stimulating events or circumstances of life, through which men in every age have been aroused to faith in God and have been given a deepening conviction of his love and care.

For «providence» is a word which tells us of the conviction that God exercises a never - failing and personal control over, even as he unfailingly works within, the events and circumstances of life, molding them and molding us in such a way that his grace and power are manifested in human history and in personal experience.

God in His will through history had into reality seemingly illogical or cruel events to happen in our world, but no one is spared if the purpose is for the good of humanity, wars pestilence even the holocust has a reason and purpose beyond our comprehension at our times but will be reveald in the future, The Phillipine catasthrophy for example is viewed by some as Gods punishment, we experienced the brunt of natures punishing power but it also unveiled the true feelings and concern of the whole world in helping us materially and spiiritually by aiding and consoling us that was unprecedented in history, The whole world had demostrated, to me, a kind of humanitarian concern and love that trancends races and culture, A kind of demonstration by higher being the we humans is one with Him.The cost of human lives and misery is nothing in history compared to its positve historical consequences

The relational view presented here responds to those questions by showing the inherent social responsibility all our experiences carry with them and by urging that careful attention be given to cultivating our feeling - for the future that God envisions, given the actual events of the past.

The hotly debated question as to whether this implies that the Kingdom is to be regarded as present, inbreaking, dawning, casting its shadows before it, or whatever, becomes academic when we realize that the claim of the saying is that certain events in the ministry of Jesus are nothing less than an experience of the Kingdom of God.

your understanding of the change process is very simplistic, because your mind is not open, you specifically believe already in the traditional doctrines, Dogmas as shown in thousands of years of history evolves, and the need for input variables, meaning the diversity of religious belief is necessay because nature through his will is requiring this to happen, we are being educated by God in the events of history.In the past when there was no humans yet Gods will is directly manifisted in nature, with our coming and education through history, we gradually takes the responsibilty of implementing the will.Your complaint on your perception of abuse is just part of the complex process of educating us through experience.

Typical in conversion experiences some life altering event has occured and the security of knowing God is in control brings relief.

In chapters one and two this was explained In terms of God's fully experiencing our experience and drawing from it all the possibilities for continued experience that each event generates.

This «uniqueness» does not just mean a unique «intuitive experience» of God, but the «historical event» by which the intuition appears within the world.

So for much, perhaps most, of the New Testament, the expectation of God's in - breaking is a present historical expectation; if in later writings New Testament authors appeared to alter that expectation from an outward, historical event to an inward, spiritual experience — in light of its lengthening delay — the church did not excise that earlier, more immediate expectation from the canon.

Just as the Beroeans of Acts responded to the events around them by searching the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true (Acts I7: II), so we must interpret our experience afresh in the light of God's word.

What happens in the world «makes a difference» to God in that those events influence the quality of the divine experience of the world.

Now it is exactly in situations like this — according to the standard account of orthodox Whiteheadians — that God is supposed to lure the world, by means of what he proffers to actual occasions via subjective aims, toward that falling out of events which will make his future experience most positive.

In this situation how could we give meaningful content to the idea that God extends subjective aims to the various actors in the little drama we have constructed, that is, provides subjective aims which have the potential, at least, to affect the outcome of events, and have, therefore, the potential to affect the character of God's future experience?

The sociological event of the Sabbath has its theological grounds not first of all in God's past and future but in the present experience itself.

If our human existence is not that of some supposedly substantial and indestructible soul to whom experiences happen, but is rather those experiences themselves held together in unity and given identity by the awareness and self - awareness which makes it possible for us to say «I» and «you», then the enduring reality, which God accepts and values, is precisely that series of events or occasions which go to make us what we are.

This «daring» (Buber) and «massive» (E. Jenni) anthropomorphism - i.e., God himself resting - perhaps finds its analogue in the communion experienced between humankind and God in the Sabbath event.»

The fact is that Abelard was trying to say, with his own passionate awareness of what love can mean in human experience, that in Jesus, God gave us not so much an example of what we should be like but — and this is the big point in his teaching — a vivid and compelling demonstration in a concrete event in history that God does love humanity and will go to any lengths to win from them their glad and committed response.

It was perhaps inevitable that the overwhelming experience of God's working made available to men and women in the event of Jesus Christ would lead to a less vigorous insistence on his human personhood.

, That Rylaarsdam's criticism is in part, at least, based on a misunderstanding of Buber's position and a difference in Rylaarsdam's own a priori assumptions is shown by his further statements that «Because of his individual and personal emphasis the notion of an objective revelation of God in nature and history involving the whole community of Israel in the real event of the Exodus does not fit well for him,» that Buber's view of revelation is «essentially mystical and nonhistorical,» and that «the realistic disclosure of Yahweh as the Lord of nature and of history recedes into the background because of an overconcern with the experience of personal relation» — criticisms which are all far wide of the mark, as is shown by the present chapter.)

Under all variations of form, they continued to affirm that in the events out of which the Christian Church arose there was a conclusive act of God, who in them visited and redeemed His people; and that in the corporate experience of the Church itself there was revealed a new quality of life, arising out of what God had done, which in turn corroborated the value set upon the facts.

Feeling might — a genuine feeling, freely chosen, that God can interpret this event in the best possible way and will offer that interpretation as a possibility for the mother's own experience.

It seems to me that the only thing we can do is pray that one day the non-believers out there experience some kind of an event which opens their eyes to the power of God.

After describing in some detail the principle of complementarity in physics, Austin suggests that images of God as Father and as Judge are complementary models used to interpret individual and corporate experience.24 The prophet Amos, he points out, interpreted events in Israel's history primarily in terms of God's judgment, while Hosea understood events in terms of God's forgiveness.

Thus, if the mother chooses to accept this shocking event and reaffirm genuinely her belief and trust in a loving God, that experience, which is initially hers, becomes ours as it is actualized through her words, behavior, feelings, presence, etc..

God does everything possible to enable us with our limitations and freedom to reach the fullest possible experience in every event, but God can not experience for us, in our place.

«God's role is not the combat of productive force with productive force, of destructive force with destructive force; it lies in the patient operation of the over-powering rationality of his conceptual harmonization «16 Thus at times Whitehead appears to say, as Ely contends, that evil remains evil in the world of events («God can not unmake the past») but that in God's experience evil is transmuted into goodness.

They talked with their children about what the future would be like without their mother; they grew in sensitivity and appreciation of one another and life and everyday events; and most of all, they deepened their experience of sharing one life with God.

Like any other event, death is an actual experience that allows God to relate to us anew.

But when events take place that God knew were improbable, it makes sense to say he experiences something like surprise.

This may seem to put God in a passive, merely receptive position regarding the events of human experience.

An alternative understanding is that perfection is everything that is given in human experience, an «everything» that only God relates to but also an «everything» that is limited to each event.

No other event gives God the same full range of experience to draw upon.

That is, God's inclusive vision and experience does enable him to relate evil events to others in such a way that some positive value results.

In a similar way, the universal effect of Jesus» death seems to be undercut by the relational view that God includes all experiences and all events and all people in God's relation to the world.

It is a value that God mediates to all, once Jesus has completed the event in his own experience.

Rather God's knowledge, God's power, God's feeling is enriched by the unique experience that is the grandmother and that becomes part of God through God's perfect knowledge, feeling, relation to this event.

So to speak of God's perfect knowledge is to say that God knows everything that actual events or experience allows one to know.