We could then suppose that when Whitehead developed the idea of the consequent nature in the narrow sense, he created the «primordial nature» as a contrasting term This hypothesis would make sense of the present text of PR without supposing that Whitehead began working on the Gifford Lectures only with a noninteractive
God little different from the abstract principle of concretion of SMW» (PS 15: 200).
Not exact matches
Atheists: I know many there are many people that practice religion just by fanaticism, I've seen many people in my opinion stupid (excuse the word) praying to saints hopping to solve their problems by repeating pre-made sentences over and over, but there are others
different, I don't think Religion and Science need to be opposites, I believe in
God, I'm Catholic and I have many reasons to believe in him, I don't think however that we should pray instead of looking for the cause and applying a solution, Atheists think they are smart because they focus on Science and technology instead of putting their faith in a
God, I don't think
God will solve our problems, i think he gave us the means to solve them by ourselves that's were
God is, also I think that
God created everything but not as a Magical thing but stablishing certain rules like Physics and Quimics etc. he's not an idiot and he knew how to make it so everything was on balance, he's the Scientist of Scientist the Mathematic of Mathematics, the Physician of Physicians, from the tiny
little fact that a mosquito, an insect species needs to feed from blood from a completely
different species, who created the mosquitos that way?
believing in
god, is no
different to believing in fairies and leprechaun's (and to keep mel happy, cute
little fluffy easter bunnies too)
It makes me a
little sad to lose these beliefs, similar to the sadness I must have felt when I realized Santa Claus wasn't real; but, it also forces me to come to a
different understanding of
God and our relationship to
God and each other.
In our time, with a
little distance from it all, a book like
God and Man at Yale and a life like William F. Buckley's seem to call us to a
different way of being Catholic in the world.
Missouri Synod theologians had traditionally affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible, and, although such a term can mean many things, in practice it meant certain rather specific things: harmonizing of the various biblical narratives; a somewhat ahistorical reading of the Bible in which there was
little room for growth or development of theological understanding; a tendency to hold that
God would not have used within the Bible literary forms such as myth, legend, or saga; an unwillingness to reckon with possible creativity on the part of the evangelists who tell the story of Jesus in the Gospels or to consider what it might mean that they write that story from a post-Easter perspective; a general reluctance to consider that the canons of historical exactitude which we take as givens might have been
different for the biblical authors.
People of
God have a way of trying to fit everything into a «perfect
little box», when the real story may be
different from what they believe to have happened.
Little was mentioned of the fact that the Canaanites worshipped
different god (s) and that this might have been God's central conce
god (s) and that this might have been
God's central conce
God's central concern.
Some aspects of our lives reveal that we have changed very
little from the pagan days when there was a
god who was served on each day, and each
god had requirements that were
different.
The only difference (and not much
different for that matter) is that this
little fishy will be a bit more comfortable in his very limited and closed environment, only to realize that
God is the only way out.
As
God prehends the universe at the instant the piano teeters, he sees the various possible ways this
little drama could be played out, sees all the ramifications of the possible scenarios, and realizes that some ways the action might unfold are better than others, that is, some outcomes would produce a future which when he,
God, prehended it would make his experience more rich, more harmonious, more beautiful than his experience would be were alternative outcomes to produce quite
different futures.
Every time there was some ridiculous
little quibble over theology or doctrine (like how many angels could dance on the head of a pin), there'd be a schism, and 2
different groups would go their separate ways, each one convinced it had a lock on
God's absolute truth and that their opponents with heathen heretic apostate sinners doomed (DOOMED, I tell you!)
A well educated man Paul in the days after Jesus addresses the Greeks and their
gods with that conversation being
little different from what I see on this site.
It is often phrased a
little different (e.g., «He doesn't believe in the entire Word of
God!»)
How
God is glorified in a single Lutheran girl from New York City might look a
little different than how
God is glorified in sprawling Catholic family in Mexico.
That is, when there is
little response to the call of
God, when the occasions constitute themselves to carry forward projects determined in their past and impervious to the new directions in which
God tries to steer them, then the new possibilities to which
God calls subsequently can be less and less
different from their own stubborn projects.
The church I attend looks very
different than the one three minutes down the road, and the larger church body I belong to has
little in common with the type of 10,000 member megachurches below the border that fly giant American flags and preach that
God's 100 per cent in favour of bombing Iraq.
I believe that
God made us all a
little different on the inside, just like the outside.
The kids are learning
different ways to show
God's love in the community, and parents are given
little paper angels on which we are to write the acts we've observed at home.
«Just a
little different than John Denver's «Thank
God I'm a Country Boy» that I heard in my car a few minutes before.