Sentences with phrase «images of god do»

To suggest that women can not reflect the image of God does great violence to the scriptures.

Being made in the image of God does in no way shape or form equate us to a «human version» of the creator.

Being made in the image of God does in no way shape or form equate us to a â $ ˜human versionâ $ ™ of the creator» (fishon)

Man in the image of God does not guarantee his virtue.

Not exact matches

In spite of the Ten Commandment's ban on «graven images» (and the worship of them), many Christians have become so used to visual representations of Christ that we often don't give them a second thought, nor consider what they say about our mental picture of the Son of God.

1: Have no other gods — NOT A LAW = > In God we trust is on our legal currency 2: Make no graven image — NOT A LAW = > intellectual property is a God to many, we have tones of laws protecting against false copies 3: Don't take the name in vain — NOT A LAW = > false testimony is a crime as is swearing in some states 4: Honor the Sabbath — NOT A LAW = > employment law in many states prohibits forced labor on religious days 5: Honor thy father and mother — NOT A LAW = > minors have limited right to transact commerce under 19.

Since we are (supposedly) designed «In His Image», does that mean that your God has tonsils, gets hay fever and can not scratch the middle of his back if he gets a itch?

God's image IS our brain, & if we could shrink ourselves to the size of a brain cell & go inside & take a look around, I imagine it would look a LOT like the universe does to us from Earth now.

Do the images of a white Jesus risk making God in our own image?

This has nothing to do with reflecting the image of God we were all created with.

I realize that your beliefs are very important to you but the Bible does contain some portrayals of God that don't fit the image of the loving God that is portrayed by many Evangelicals.

If man is not made more in the image of God than woman is, then how does man leading church better represent the relationship of God to man than a woman leading church would?

We humans make God contemptible because of our prejudice, taught / learned hate, and our desire to make God over into our image (you know, the cool dad who lives with his perfect family in the cul de sac and belongs to the same golf club you do, etc, etc.).

Are so - called Catholics, Mormons, Israelites, Evangelicals and Muslims and all those that call themselves «Christians» followers of the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, or do they follow after an image of a false god and a false Christ (Matthew 24:24; 2 CGod, or do they follow after an image of a false god and a false Christ (Matthew 24:24; 2 Cgod and a false Christ (Matthew 24:24; 2 Cor.

Theologies were written to suggest that non-white people did not bear the image of God like white people did and were therefore not worthy of basic human dignity.

You are aware that there is also female imagery of God in the bible and that Genesis does tell us that God created male and female in his image.

If those in the rain forest were given the image of God they have opportunity if they have not the image of God they are a blank slate as to soul i.e. they do not have capacity to love

«I think we're made in the image of God regardless,» he added, «I don't think the circumstances dictate whether God knows us and loves us, regardless of how our conception comes about.»

Has absolutely nothing to do with the God of the Bible, but it is the image of your false perception.

Perhaps that god did his best to make the God of Abraham in his own imagod did his best to make the God of Abraham in his own imaGod of Abraham in his own image.

It was his heart (and He is the image of the invisible God) to protect Jerusalem, not to do it violence.

Christians who want to defend our faith are being duped by the Father of Lies into falling for a story that says Islam is the enemy and therefore anything we do to fight Islam (including posting obvious lies, including inciting hatred for men and women made in God's image) is justified.

Augustine observes that this doesn't seem to give guidance on how you're meant to love yourself, but you're meant to love yourself as in the image of God.

it seems that many of us want to create a God in our image, we seem to say, «if I was god, I would do it this way» well, we are not God and just because our human nature doesn't like some of Gods attributGod in our image, we seem to say, «if I was god, I would do it this way» well, we are not God and just because our human nature doesn't like some of Gods attributgod, I would do it this way» well, we are not God and just because our human nature doesn't like some of Gods attributGod and just because our human nature doesn't like some of Gods attributes.

For it to be designed implies there is a designer and to be in the image of God to be created and seen as being good meaning that in your truest sense of who you are, you are good and if that is brought to the for you can't help but do good — it being like breathing,

God did not make us this way as some sort of test, but because he wanted us to be in his own image and likeness.

There are many things we do not understand, facets of god that has long been lost and long been rewritten by man in his own image to justify today's needs and actions.

Not because of what you do or what you say or what you accomplish but simply because you were made in the image of God and you are here.

In the image of Psalm 82, whatever we claim to do in our churches, as a people we have worshipped the gods against whom the God of Israel speaks in the council.

At what point did the idea that all people are created in the image of God lose its currency and appeal?

If a basic rule of hermeneutics is that the simpler and clearer texts should override the more difficult and troubling texts, and if Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God so that He can say «if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father,» why do we choose to let the more troubling, difficult, and violent texts override and trump the loving, merciful, and Christlike texts?

theo «I don't think you understand what it means to be the image - bearer of God» Neither do you... all you know is what it is to BELIEVE you are the image bearer of gGod» Neither do you... all you know is what it is to BELIEVE you are the image bearer of godgod.

Mimi Haddad of Christians for Biblical Equality does a really fine job unpacking these images in her article on the topic, «Is God Male?»

That we pervert the image of God in ourselves when we do not love that which is beneath us is the critical spiritual insight of St. Francis of Assisi and of Albert Schweitzer.

Images that twist the meaning of love to paint God as a cruel and hateful abuser do not do God justice.

The servant image was never more clear than in the hymn to Christ in Philippians, where it is said of Jesus that he, «though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant» (Phil.

All are in the same situation and no authority — not scriptural status, liturgical longevity, or ecclesiastical fiat — can decree that some types of language, or some images, refer literally to God while others do not.

If mankind is made in the image and likeness of God, don't we have, at the core of our being, the qualities of God?

The terrible personal cost is not something demanded by the Father; it is the consequence of what sin has done to human beings in destroying the image and glory of God within our nature.

On the other hand, don't most of us know people who look and act nothing like what we suppose someone created in God's image should look and act like?

If you're a theologian but prevenient grace doesn't work for you, then think of the role of the imago Dei (the Image of God), and how that image acts to shape and transforImage of God), and how that image acts to shape and transforimage acts to shape and transform us.

But it is chiefly concerned to tell men what they may become in Christ, what indeed they already are in the divine intention: sons of God, made in his image, fallen into sin by their willfulness, and now by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ able to be conformed to his likeness, the evil and the sin which they know so well being done away through God's forgiving love shed abroad through him.

For Genesis, my view is that God wants to communicate that he is the Creator of all that there is, that he has given humanity a special image - bearing role within it, but our sinfulness has broken that relationship, et cetera — but that he doesn't see a need to give them a science lesson first.

I swear, the way Jesus and God looks in the images, coupled with the stuff they do in the bible, of which if it was done by a common person (pertaining to all the killing and hell stuff.)

The difficulty with accepting the Lukan interpretation as essentially correct and seeing the shepherd as Jesus» «image of God's activity of love», as does Jeremias, (J. Jeremias, Parables of Jesus [rev. ed., 1963], p. 133.)

Does it inadvertently depict God anthropomorphically, so as to refashion a god in the image of mGod anthropomorphically, so as to refashion a god in the image of mgod in the image of man?

While I agree we can't go making demands and bending God into our own image, it doesn't make sense to me that a God whose defining characteristic is supposed to be love would present Himself to His creation in a way that looks nothing like our understanding of love.

I've seen humans as nothing more than highly evolved primates, but I've also seen them as made in the image of God; I've seen children suffering and been convinced there is no God, but I've also sensed God's presence as I've reached into that same suffering; I've convinced myself that doing whatever I wanted was the most exciting way to live, but I've also found abundant life in being humbly obedient to Jesus.

In departing from the clear teaching of the Church on our sexual identity, we do injury to our personal dignity as being male or female image - bearers of God and prevent ourselves from resolving the most fundamental question each of us strives to answer: «Who am I?»

2 Corinthians 4:4, NET: «among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.&raqgod of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.&raqGod.»