Sentences with phrase «be a giver not»

Moreover, He is the Giver not only of the answer, but first of the prayer itself.

I am a giver not a taker.

I am a good listener, i am a giver not a taker.I come from a lg family, I love to cook, go out to eat occasionally, stay at home and relax, watch a good show on tv.or go out dancing, to the beach, long walks or just out for a ride..

As a law student and an articling student and a lawyer, be a giver not a taker.

Not exact matches

Other ideas: Make sure people aren't afraid to ask for help — not in a taking way, but in a manner that lets givers know where their help is most needed.

Grant suggests rewards that are substantial enough to recognize givers» efforts but not so large that they encourage takers to game the system.

Being a giver of fish rather than a teacher of fishing «is not the way to deal with poverty,» says Widmer.

«The last one that I found: Almost all of them were real givers, not just on the surface... but really passionate about giving... It was really real,» says Robbins.

Choosing the perfect gift can be hard — for the giver, for the recipient (who may not always like the gift, but must...

there are so much info on your site that i wonder if you have not given out all i need to learn!i mean that you are a «giver», a cheerful giver.I WILL SURELY BE YOUR MEMBER SOON.thanks and God increase you greatly

The modern Santa Claus is a direct descendent of England's Father Christmas, who was not originally a gift - giver.

Further, part of a charitable act is not the benefit to the recipient, but the benefit to the soul of the giver.

It is not charity to have the government shake down the «giver» and redistribute the money.

Instead I am outside with the misfits, with the rebels, the dreamers, the people of the second chance, the radical grace givers, the ones with arms wide open, the ones that you've rejected as not worthy of being listened to and I will be happy here.

God is not an «indian giver» (if you'll pardon the term).

I want to be outside with the misfits, with the rebels, the dreamers, the second - chance givers, the radical grace lavishers, the ones with arms wide open, the courageously vulnerable, and among even — or maybe especially — the ones rejected by the Table as not worthy enough or right enough.

You are correct, God does not the cause of death; he is the giver of life.

Again, at a stroke I've shown that it's not true that without a moral law giver there is no morality.

Not everyone is a giver, but everyone is supposed to be giving back to God a portion of what He has given to them.

Your heart is set on helping the church, thus fulfilling the second part of the command from Apostle Paul that «Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver» (2 Corinthians 9:7).

God is the moral life giver, not you, you know nothing.

Pastoral care - givers can not convey «a presence by means of which [others are] told that nevertheless there is meaning» unless they understand themselves as participating in a ministry not their own but Christ's.

Christocentrism has not been abated, but Christ as giver of grace is seen as author of nature and Lord of history as well.

Craig i am thinking that even though the promise hadnt been fulfilled through Christs death the act of faith is what saved them.As abraham believed God and was credited to hi mas righteousness.I was thinking though there were different dispensation periods ie pre flood enoch post flood elijah the prophets Moses the law giver and jesus all were taken up to God to heaven not just enoch so in all periods there was a representative of Christ as an example to the people of that time that the messiah was coming.brent

But this isn't quite right, for Timothy is» giver the mandate to teach in a way that brings health to people.

The previous volumes» How the Irish Saved Civilization and The Gifts of the Jews» were extremely popular, and Cahill follows the same basic format here, presenting an introductory description of the world in which the gift «giver appears, a history of the protagonist (in the first volumes a people, not an individual), and finally an assessment of the gift «giver's lasting effects on history.

He concluded that God's gifts were more important than the giver, that dependence upon God and obedience to His revealed will were not necessary.

What is important is universal participation, not the amount one gives (which is, by they way, known only to the giver and the treasurer of his or her community.

The purposes of the Law were brought to an end by the coming of our Life giver, who offered himself in place of the sacrifices in the Law, and was led like a lamb to the slaughter in place of the lamb of propitiation... He gave his blood for all mankind, so that the blood of animals should not be required of us.

That was the dilemma after praying and seeking the Lord he shows me a couple of things one is God calls the shots not satan satans demons bow to Gods authority and must get his permission so they beg Jesus to send the demons into the pigs.Jesus allows it so we can see satans purpose is always to destroy life.God is still the same yesterday today and forever he is the giver of life.We do know that the pigs were owned by the gentile nations and may well have been offered or about to be offered to there gods which would mean they would belong to satan.Like the example Jesus said about taxes should he pay them and he said give to caesar what is caesars.Or the other option was that it showed Gods mercy to the man that had been healed by delivering him of the demons and he was also protecting the people in the area from the influence of the demons.So God is still the same he is unchangeable and definitely not bipolar.I would say if anyone was bipolar in this situation it is David and he like us struggled with the same choice to walk according to the flesh or walk according to the spirit of God.brentnz

The Torah is not an objective law independent of man's actual relationship to God: it bestows life only on those who receive it in association with its Giver, and for His sake.

If you say, «by chance», you are godless, because you do not acknowledge the Creator, nor give thanks to the Giver?

We had hated writing thank - you notes, so we let our children slide, effectively teaching them that their pleasure, their receiving, was all that mattered; they didn't have to take into account the feelings of the giver or participate in the basic human ritual of reciprocity if they didn't want to.

To give without qualification is defective not because it gains nothing in return for the giver but because it may be harmful to the recipient.

The overt lesson of the story from the point of view of the boy is that the tree always has more to give, not that one should become a giver oneself.

There are ways to serve in which the giver does not forsake her identity.

One final philosophical question: Even if we agree that benevolence is supererogatory in a way that non-malevolence is not, even if we agree that our duty to give and help is much weaker than our duty not to hurt, we can still ask if giving, helping, and bestowing can in some cases become wicked: wicked because it is debilitating to the self - reliance of the recipient; wicked because it deprives one of the capacity to give also to others; wicked because it infantilizes the recipient; wicked because it cements a bond between giver and taker that should be much more evanescent.

We concluded that there are several reasons that could be used to support an argument for choosing Jesus as our compass, for granting him a sacred role as meaning - giver: first, we are not aware of any especially good alternatives; second, his ability to serve in this role has been confirmed in many faithful lives; and third, in choosing him we align ourselves with a compass which is in the public domain, and as such our interpretation is subject to the correction of tradition and public debate.

Consequently, God being the law giver, and faith being his law (standard), it so follows that faith does not originate from man but from God.

Indeed, the tree's self - expenditure is, at the same time, paradoxically not self - denial but self - fulfillment — at least self - fulfillment as a loving mother and as a giver.

And, as I shall seek to demonstrate, to eliminate the Old Testament eliminates not only a huge number of wars but also the essential picture of what peace is all about, of God as giver of peace, of how peace is to be maintained and ordered — its connection with justice — and of the final peace that is promised and hoped for.

The Christmas story — the one according to Luke not Dickens — is not about how blessed it is to be givers but about how essential it is to see ourselves as receivers.

Yet I suggest that we are better givers than getters, not because we are generous people but because we are proud, arrogant people.

Charity with an ulterior motive — even one the giver thinks is a boon like «bringing souls to Christ» — is not true charity.

So, if I find myself wishing I was sick because I felt fatigued to do church, or I'm not as patient with people, I figure out what the energy - givers and the energy - takers are.

There we are portrayed not as the givers we wish we were but as the receivers we are.

Jesus advocated that INDIVIDUALS be cheerful, generous givers and good samaritans, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

He is not calling the government to be cheerful giver... but us.

Didn't church people applaud Washington Gladden for returning to John D. Rockefeller a gift to missions because «the gift without the giver is bare»?

Jeremy have been asking the holy spirit for his help with this and in regards to the lame man that Jesus healed I do nt believe that sin was the issue for him just like the blind man was it his parents or did he sin the answer was neither but so that God would be glorified.What was the sin that may have been worse for him.The two situations are related of the woman caught in adultery the key words being go and sin no more only two references in the bible and will explain later the lame man we see at first his dependency on everyone else for his needs he cant do it he is in the best position to receive Gods grace but what does he do with it.Does he follow Jesus no we are told he goes to the temple and Jesus finds him now that he has his strength to do things on his own what his response to follow the way of the pharisees that is what is worse than his condition before so he is warned by go and sin no more.We get confused because we see the word sin but the giver of is speaking to him to go another way means death.Getting back to the two situations of the woman caught in adultery and the lame man here we see a picture of our hearts on the one our love for sin and on the other the desire to work out our salvation on our terms they are the two areas we have to submit to God.My experience was the self righteousness was the harder to deal with because it is linked in to our feelings of self worth and self confidence so we have to be broken so we are humble enough to realise that without God we can do nothing our flesh hates that so it is a struggle at first to change our way of thinking.brentnz