Sentences with phrase «concepts about god»

The wood represents the ideas that fuel our concepts about God.

New insights derived from understanding the nature of God in terms of this perception of reality produce a picture of God that is more consistent with the requirements of those who worship (i.e., a religious God) than traditional concepts about God.

In particular, the concepts about God provide one area of great commonality.

«God» is not a concept about God.

Not exact matches

Or just transparent about thing that are easy targets — the church is an easy target — People's concepts of God are easy (Be done for centuries).

The concept of God did not spring out of thin air - intelligent humans created him and then thousands of years later used the idea to explain what they did not understand and / or like about evolution.

All I'm saying is that you can not talk about love without first talking about God... in spite of what we humans do with that word / concept, God is at the core of it.

When I came to the realization about theological concepts acting as a substitute for a relationship with God, I started to see and hear that kind of stuff all over the place in church.

My concept about love and God changed.

There are two types of Athiests; Scientist athiests who shed no emotions talking about rational concepts or lack of proof; and Angry Athiests, whio consistently feel the need to mock other faiths, and post incessantly any time someone mentions the word God or Jesus.

From the title I had thought about it a bit differently although I agree with the concept you have put forth What I thought I'd see was God freely giving and the «church» attaching the strings but then again I am the «church.»

Here's an old post I did about the concept of atheist's being angry at god though, since I guess that applies — though I think this was more tongue in cheek even if it didn't go across perfectly:

If someone wants to learn about God, really learn about God, lets spend some time sitting down together in a mature and peaceful setting where we can both chill, not feel threatened and discuss the whole concept.

This may all be less problematic with simple, concrete objects («chair»), but is far more difficult with abstract concepts and ideas, particularly about God, religion, politics, metaphysics, etc. («love», «faith», «nature», «sacrifice», «purity», «freedom»).

The concept of international human rights from which no country is exempt is consonant with the idea that Shari'a, the large body of legal tradition that informs the Muslim community about how God requires it to live, is in some sense the rule of God.

blastoff - if one can show with evidence that the concept of God from the Torah was created by a human and with evidence shows how, where, when and why... it has everything to do with the topic about the existence of God.

Once you free yourself of the mental slavery of the god concept, you too will hear statements about «the bible being vetted and proven true» and either laugh or shake your head in sadness and disbelief for your fellow man.

There are also three paragraphs inserted into chapter 6 on «The Nineteenth Century» (SMW 153 - 55), indicated by the fact that «these individual enduring entities» in the very next sentence refers back to the final sentence just before the inserted material.2 Later new insights about eternal objects and God were added in the two metaphysical chapters, using the new concept of «actual occasion» for the first time.

I once spoke with my Mormon neighbor about this and she could not wrap her mind around the concept: «Does it mean God has sex with all of us?»

The whole story about some god punishing a person for all of eternity for not believing in your particular brand of religion might scare a child enought to believe but most adults are way past such a silly concept.

But considering our country's near -400-year history, can we honestly say that our concepts and perceptions about God haven't evolved?

But there's no objective evidence to support any of them, and pretty much everything about the concept of a god raises significant questions no one can answer.»

-- the Bible being a collection of stories about trying to understanding the human concept of «God.»

Kasper thinks that the Catholic theological tradition doesn't talk about mercy enough and that the classical concept of God, which sees God as perfect and unchanging, is «pastorally... a catastrophe.»

Many atheists I would say wouldn't mind the concept of a god being real and heaven etc... But we aren't willing to ignore reality to stroke a belief which is not plausible in light of evidence and what we understand already about reality.

My preliminary research into Hartshorne's concept of God resulted in an article published in The Clergy Review which was a response to a criticism of him by Brian Davies, a British Thomist scholar.14 It appeared to me that Hartshorne's critics failed to see that his claims about God had to be seen within the context of his metaphysics.

How about, an erroneous concept of God (an idol), erroneous interpretation of the bible, and a concept of the «church» as an organization or something other than consisting of all of the believers in the world.

Do you not recognise that in the scriptures the concepts about the character of God grow in truth beauty and goodness as the generations pass.

Christians, especially American Christians, love to talk about how God's desire is to bless us, which is a totally biblical concept.

One insight provided by Hartshorne's work on the ontological argument is that the concept of the existence of God is something akin to a regulative idea for the rational thought about reality which is attempted in Hartshorne's metaphysics.

Before the Word of God became man, the world orchestra was «fiddling» about without any plan: world - views, religions, different concepts of the state, each one playing to itself.

My favorite way of explaining it is that the concept of God as a Trinity makes about as much sense as a triangle existing in one dimension.

A concept of natural cause - and - effect relations accords with all the presuppositions of science but seems to have an impersonality about it which is not easily fitted into a conception of God's personal care and guiding providence.

Those are the words they use, the feelings, the thoughts, and the concepts which they employ when they begin to talk or write about the presence of God.

If our relationship with God is in the spirit of adoption — if God is the gracious parent who freely and lovingly chooses to parent us — might this concept then challenge our own cultural assumptions about «real» parenthood?

Exorcizing the concept «God» from the system leaves me in a stance very similar to that of Paul van Buren, who holds that the essence of Christianity is an ethical message about how to live a life and that «God» talk is a dated, misleading, unhelpful, obscure way of saying what Christianity wants to say about what it is to be a man and to live a moral life.

The nominalists concluded that our speech about God could only be equivocal: As finite beings, we can have no concepts that capture the infinite being of the infinitely transcendent God.

Believe in God if you want to, it is certainly possible God exists, but please be smart about the reasons WHY you think what you do, whether that is belief in concepts without evidence or otherwise.

When ANY American claims that a particular right is «inalienable» — regardless of their beliefs about God or religion — they are paying homage to the idea of Divine Rights as derived from the concept of Natural Law and are IMPLICITLY agreeing that our rights are Divine in origin.

He was speaking to teachers about education, but his observation applies also to parenting — to parents who know they have an ideal for the concept of the «good» and a relation with a gracious God.

In my own ministry I have talked with a number of thoughtful people — mainly young people — who accept belief in God as giving meaning and joy and hope to this life but reject, or are at best highly doubtful about, any concept of personal resurrection or immortality.

We have addressed in section II the problems involved in speaking about God in concepts.

Our concept of God is the most important thing about us because it determines our relationship with God, with others and with ourselves.

They are only concerned about forgiveness, and have no concept that repentance is not just saying «Ooops, oh well God will forgive so I can continue in my fleshly ways».

The Kingdom (or Reign) of God, Jesus» «comprehensive term for the blessing of salvation,» is an eschatological concept which shows that Jesus stands in the historical context of Jewish expectations about the end of the world and God's new future» 7 yet his teaching also contrasts with that context.

God is a concept, an idea used by ancient people to explain a world they knew nothing about.

The reason this has proved to be such a problem in process thought has less to do with the peculiar nature of Whitehead's concept of God than with an underlying assumption about prehension.

Two comments about this third point: First, the statement of this requirement is evidence that neither the concept of God in general nor the conception of the consequent nature of God is ad hoc to Whitehead's system.

And that is the concept that Bill Wilson spelled out on pages 43, 45, and 46 of the Fourth Edition and earlier editions of the Big Book when Bill spoke of a «Higher Power,» said he was going to talk about «God,» and then defined the «Power» as «God.»

In this sense, the foundational assertions of Christian witness and theology, as distinct from their constitutive assertion, are all assertions about God; and this means that, in the very same sense, the concept expressed by «God» must be as indispensable to Christian theology as to the witness of faith en which it is the reflection.