Sentences with phrase «arguing against god»

The problem, of course, is that when non-Calvinists disagree with Calvinism, they are not arguing against God; they are arguing against the Calvinistic understanding of God.

Why do you want to argue against God, why?

Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing Satan loves, obviously from Martin's comments because it gives haters and ignorant people ammunition to argue against God and church.

Therefore, the non-Calvinist has just as much right to say «Who are you, O man, to argue against God?»

When I write about non-violence, people sometimes say to me, You can't argue against God.

One thing that some people say to me is, «You can't argue against God.

You must argue against Gods attributes which just degrades into speculation and a design of a god that fits our vision not the God revealed through all existence.

Those who argue against God are doing it out of ignorance (not malice I hope because to go there is indeed exceedingly dangerous).

America may have enough Seminaries to teach u how to argue against God but scientists don't care.

Not exact matches

Fools, you argue against the things of God yet can not see that the word GOD alone carries something greater than the vocable.

Dawkins, in his mediocre opinions in The God Delusion: -[1] Fails to support debunked assertions [i.e.can't defend his opinions when they are argued against by real scientists and Theologians!]

It amazes me that many on the left cry out about separation of church and state when arguing against prayer in school or the words in god we trust on money.

You raise a very good point that escapes most theists and that is while they argue against atheists for not believing in their god, they forget that most of those arguments could be applied to them by somebody of another religion.

Blessed are the Cheesemakers You are doing it again, arguing your concept of god against God who in fact exists in form and substance as expressgod against God who in fact exists in form and substance as expressGod who in fact exists in form and substance as expressed.

Stop trying to argue with people who have hardened their hearts against God.

Against these two views, I argued that the biblical gospel is pretty much everything related to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, including the prophecies about Him, and the ongoing empowerment for life with God that we receive as believers.

And it is as a shepherd named David said of those who argue against a Creator, that «in his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: «There is no God.»

Furthermore, Wesley argued (against Reformed doctrine) that Christians could enjoy entire sanctification in this life: loving God and their neighbors, meekness and lowliness of heart, abstaining from all appearance of evil, and doing all for the glory of God.

Are we not arguing that there is a correlation between happiness and obedience to God (or faith), between unhappiness and revolt against God, according to the ancient theory debated in the Book of Job?

How can any Christian argue with much conviction against capital punishment if God effects his purpose in such an unwaveringly bloody way?

Just as he did in the garden of Eden, he whispers, «Did God really say...» (Genesis 3:1) He questions us, confuses us and argues against us until we are confused.

I wish someone had told that to the Reformers, some of whom were burned for translating the Bible into their native languages so people could read it, who argued for salvation by grace against a salvation by works Gospel, who argued for Jesus as the son of God, uncreated, instead of just one among many of «God's» created beings.

Read those books and your thoughts are likely to be more clear and your words more coherent, no matter if you argue for or against the existence of God.

observer You continue to argue against the attributes of God as recorded by the Chosen Ones in the Old Testament.

You continue to argue against the radiance of God as expressed through Jesus.

You used the common slurs atheists use to argue About God and the Bible against them.

I was not arguing for the existence of God... I was arguing against your declaration that there is no evidence.

Much ecotheology, process theology and creation spirituality go even further by arguing against the traditional split between inert, value - free nature and a transcendent God, and by arguing that God acts in and through the processes of nature, which are reconceived as sacred or spiritual.

Fourthly, if we subscribe to the notion that there is no separation regarding work (viewed as worship — Col 3:17, 23 - 24; Rom 12:1) in the church and the marketplace, why shouldn't Christians (who argue against receiving God's provision in the form of a salary) just «trust God», and reject their employers» salary structure?

They are breathing God's air all the time they are arguing against him.»

Some argue that humanity did have a free will before Adam and Eve rebelled against God and fell into sin by eating fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Anyone who would argue with this, man or woman, is in rebellion against God and not man.

I don't recall anywhere in the article, him arguing against religion or God.

I am not arguing against Sherburne in favor of the view that God is needed as the ground of the givenness of the past and can fulfill this function.

And if you reply with anything that says that Jesus is a facet or aspect or anything else of God, then you can't turn around and argue against mixing God (s)-- and the theory that Allah, or Yahweh, are other names for the same God, because you've already by < definition argued that God can have multiple aspects — why just the three names for them from Trinity theology?

They argued that God, in his goodness, had determined to save mankind, which had rebelled against him.

They argued against the despotism of God as well as against determinism and fatalism and put their whole trust in human reason, which to them was sacred.

† Christians do not really exist, they just pretend that they believe in God and argue with non-religious people while not knowing very much at all regarding Christianity or the meaning of the bible and disregarding half of what the bible says only to strongly vocalize their stance against the other half of the bible that is against things that they either do not understand or that do not affect them personally.

When he could not argue against Karl Friedrich he simply commented, «You may knock my block off, but I shall still believe in God.

you can argue against the existence of God and a spiritual realm, but you can never really prove it.

But a just appreciation of God's general revelation of Himself should preserve the truth that Christianity has meaning for man precisely because it represents a fulfillment of the knowledge of God which is made possible through all the things which He has made, Nygren claims, of course, simply to be setting forth scientifically the fundamental Christian motif without arguing its truth or value against any other motif.

If you care to apply the proper word (believe) to how you feel about or toward your god, then we would not even be having this discussion, for why would I argue against your accurate description of what you believe?

Schubert Ogden, author of The Reality of God and Other Essays and an outstanding process theologian, argues against subjective immortality, which he defines in the second sense, as people»... continuing to exist as subjects for the infinite future.

They might argue even (against Paul) that doing such things sends people to hell, rather than seeing references to the «Kingdom of God» or «Kingdom of Heaven» as Jesus used them, as being about out lives here and now and what we might accomplish as we follow Christ (to which a «beneficial» conversation is much more fitting).

Charles Hartshorne2 in The Logic of Perfection and Schubert Ogden3 in «The Meaning of Christian Hope» have forcefully argued against any subjective immortality, holding that as objectively experienced by God our lives are wholly preserved and cherished forever.

Against the intellectualism of these ways of knowing God, Christian thinkers argued that the knowledge of God rested on «divine action» and on «God's appearance» among human beings in the person of Christ.

The book was so well argued that it is still widely credited, even by non-believers, for successfully rebutting this particular charge against God's existence.

He argues against all such theologies in that they attempt to set up a «glory road» to God, a way of self - reliance toward righteousness and holiness.

Some atheists use multiverse theories to argue against the existence of God.

Paul wanted to show that the physical world, and our physical bodies, were not inferior to the spiritual, but were partnered with the spiritual to accomplish God's will in this world (John argues against similar beliefs in 1 John).