Sentences with phrase «claims against god»

In a way it's sad, because he think's he's promoting intelligence and reason, but really, he's spending money, making claims against God, saying people that believe God are dummies... and it's all wrong... because God is really there.

You said, «But I do know you have no evidence AT ALL to support your claims against God or Christianity.

Not exact matches

I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who are still willing to go against their Lord's teachings and attack people they claim are their God's enemies when in fact they really are their own enemies and they are just using their Gods name to mask their vile hatred and wicked hearts.

The irony being that he was threatened by the church for going against the whole «god did it» argument, which is what this guy was trying to claim, and has nothing to do with «real science»

There is ample evidence for the existence of God, what you decide to do with this evidence is ultimately up to you, but do not claim that there is none... and I would submit to you that many people believe many things without evidence every single day... but do not lump all people of faith into one basket... I have personal proof that God exists, but proof for me may not be proof for you, some people can see something with their own eyes and still deny it, that is why I said it is ultimately up to you to decide what you believe... there is much evidence both for and against the existence of God, you need to decide which evidence you choose to believe...

This is what helps you to understand that the account is the truth, that when you claim «nothing» can do the impossible, and then claim God can't do something relatively insignificant compared to that, then you are being very biased against God, and giving incredible amounts of credit to «nothing» at the same time... that is unrealistic in the extreme.

It is one thing to offend by speaking truth, that'll happen, but any other type of offence is unnecessary and against the teachings (which show God's heart on the matter) in scripture for those who claim to «know Him».

The «discernment letter» written by the six of them that night in Dallas, Texas will go down as one of the most ungodly acts against a woman done by men who claim to be of God, progressive, pro-feminist, Christianity 21.

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.

To claim that the lighting of a national Christmas tree each year makes this country «a Christian nation,» while its powerful systematically oppress the poor, turn away refugees, incite violence against religious and ethnic minorities, molest and harass women and girls and call them liars when they dare to speak up, is, in the words of the prophet Amos, sickening to God.

While Pharaoh claimed to not know who this God was initially, he quickly found out, tried to bargain his way out of things, caved and reneged (several times), and eventually discovered the consequences of raging against God.

It is true that Jesus said little about «the world» except to warn against letting its claims usurp the place of first loyalty to God, and had almost nothing to say about particular features of contemporary Jewish or Roman culture.

Our surety then upon God for our end and our very intelligibility as spiritual persons does not arise from the claims or debts that our spiritual substance vindicates against the Divine Essence.

There is absolutely nothing that Dr. Craig can s — can say against their behavior, in moral terms, apart from his own faith - based claim that they're praying to the wrong God.

Just as the prophet warns us against claiming for ourselves tasks that are reserved for God alone, Matthew tells us that we are to take on other tasks on God's behalf, chores we may not want.

As for the ideologists who claim to know the way to a perfectly just society and who «build a case against God in defense of man, on whom can they depend when human activity proves powerless?»

Sadly, these initiatives are fought tooth and nail by anti-gay groups (sadly pretty much all of which identify as Christian) who want to claim (against all evidence) that being gay makes you more likely to commit suicide not anything that you suffer as a result of being gay, just some arbitrary offense against God thing.

they are in open rebellion against God and their claims are false.

It's clearly interracial & God defends him against those claiming what he did was wrong.

REGARDLESS OF AUTHORSHIP (last week's debate), it is factually demonstrable that the FINAL FORM of the NT considers the God of the OT to be the VERY SAME God it is writing about (against Dr Baden's claim).

From the Jewish point of view, the church's claim is one more example of the nations» protest against the election of the stock of Abraham, which Israel must repudiate as a rebellion against God's word.

Phillip Schofield showed «antagonism against God» when he labelled traditional Christian views concerning sexuality «abhorrent» on national television, it has been claimed.

And he pushed back against what he sees as increasing secularism in the world, saying, «I consider that the dedication of this church of the Sagrada Familia is an event of great importance, at a time in which man claims to be able to build his life without God, as if God had nothing to say to him.»

The knowledge of the Holy Spirit as given in the atonement ought to guard the Church against the sin of claiming to exhibit unambiguously the holiness of God, but sadly this sin persists and may even find reinforcement in the claim to possess the Holy Spirit.

With all of God's first born son (s) being an established view among our many religious constabularies, many of one - God religions are dead - set against each others» claims as to which religious convictions are truly the most righteous.

It was confidently claimed that in the distant past, God had revealed the truth on various issues to men like Moses, the prophets, the apostles and above all through Jesus Christ His Son, and it was therefore impossible for puny man to pit his intelligence against God, and further it was blasphemous even to question truth that was divinely revealed.

This affirmation of God's sovereignty and the principle of salvation by grace led to a series of criticisms against all worldly authorities that claimed to usurp the power of God, be it an authoritarian church, an infallible Bible or a mechanical sacrament that offered salvation in a simplistic way.

But moral freedom is freedom to rebel against the moral claim, and freedom of the spirit is freedom to rebel against God.

The claim of Christian belief is not first and foremost that it offers the only accurate system of thought, as against all other competitors; it is that, by standing in the place of Christ, it is possible to live in such intimacy with God that no fear or failure can ever break God's commitment to us, and to live in such a degree of mutual gift and understanding that no human conflict or division need bring us to uncontrollable violence and mutual damage.

In fact, it seems fair to say that the most common criticism process theists level against the God of classical free will theism is the claim that if such a being really existed and were wholly good, we should expect to see displays of divine coercive power more often.

If we should discover mistakes in the scriptures of their religions or should observe the misconduct of their followers we should not attribute these defaults and shortcomings to the founders of those religions, inasmuch as the perversion of scriptures is possible and it is possible that mistakes of interpretation might find their way into the commentaries, but it is not at all possible that a person should fabricate lies against God and should claim to be a prophet and should put forward his own compositions as the word of God falsely and yet God should grant him respite like the righteous and should bestow upon him wide acceptance by people (Tohfa Qaisariyyah, p. g 10).

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.

To claim direct communication from God as the basis for prophetic utterance against these traditions could mean being at least threatened, perhaps silenced, or even excommunicated.

His accusers raised a large number of baseless and patently false accusations against Him, then felt that it was necessary to expel His evil from their midst, and they did all this in obedience to the command of God (so they claimed).

In the same verse he shows how far he has departed from Judaism, for he claims that the Jews have persecuted him and (picking up common Graeco - Roman complaints against them) states that they do not please God and are hostile towards all.

The atheistic evidentialist would claim, then, that there are no good arguments for the existence of God, and that there are some good arguments against the existence of God.

Most Protestant churches have made an adjustment to the structures of the general community while claiming and fighting for the freedom to witness to the Word of God, and to protest against the absolutizing of any form of power.

During the college years a student's religion must fight its way against the high - pressured tempo of the modern campus, the welter of competing social claims, the campus gods of football or fraternity or romance that leave little time or energy to think about religion and the Church.

He may claim he's a Christian, but by testing his words against those of God, he clearly is not.

There are lots of claims for and against a god....

His selection for the Nobel Prize in 1957 was an official endorsement of this effort to defend the human person against the claims of strong gods in any guise, even in the garb of moral truth.

The force of Luther's protest against the claims to authority of the established Church is to be found partly in the appeal to scripture, but also in this doctrine of man's condition and of the love of God as present only through God's grace.

But don't claim that you DO believe in God while claiming He is powerless against the things of this world.

Just this is what we found to be the final significance of the eschatological message, that man now stands under the necessity of decision, that his «Now» is always for him the last hour, in which his decision against the world and for God is demanded, in which every claim of his own is to be silenced.

If we look at our own history, we have inquisition and counter-inquisition to remind us that the claim to know and execute God's will has very often turned out to mean serving our own end and our own will, and has been used to justify crimes of all kinds against our neighbors.74

It simply tells a story that is set against the Baals and the Marduks of the then pagan world, a wolrd that claimed that their gods created the world after and bitter battle in which the corpses of the losers were used to from the earth.

If you believe that fooling a woman's system to avoid pregnancy is against your moral code then fine, we'll agree to disagree on the evils of foiling God's plan for every coupling to produce a child, but to claim the pill is abortion is just sad.

To claim that the world is merely the purposeless vehicle of sin and death is a slander against the honor of God.

By avoiding the claim that RGTs «play God» by «usurping God's prerogatives,» Christian debaters can caution against the hubris unleashed by some RGTs as a way of «caring for the creation drawn from God.»

All that would be claimed is this: If we engage in the practice of theological education, then we commit ourselves to the view that it is possible to make truth claims about God and to weigh arguments in favor of and against them, even if they never are and perhaps never can be «knock down» decisive arguments.