Sentences with phrase «god at any point of time»

I have never read any mention of the word god at any point of time in any scientific study.

Not exact matches

I was thinking this the other day, when a lot of the Facebook executives get on Twitter and feel victim - y, they're doing their victim - y dance right now a lot of the time, and at one point, Boz, Bosworth, when he said, «Maybe people will die,» that memo, and instead of being like, «Oh god, we really have to be more mature about this,» their thing was, «We can't talk now.»

And as was pointed out, God can review all history of everyone, past or future, their entire lives at any time... yours included... you're an open book, everyone is... past, present and future.

Vitz observes that, doctrinal objections aside, it is «bizarre to the point of pathology at this time in our culture to be trying to remove God the Father from our theology.»

That is because the argument I'm making at his point in time is not for Christianity, but rather for the existence of the supernatural and the existence of God.

I commend you for the liberalism you demonstrate, but at the same time feel compelled to point out that neither the teachings of the Bible, nor the actions of the God described therein are consistent with your values.

At this point I won't invest time or energy seeking God for the same reason I won't invest time and energy digging up my yard seeking buried treasure, traveling to Ireland seeking leprechauns, or traveling to the North Pole seeking Santa Claus: Until I see some evidence any of these exist I see any of these pursuits as a complete waste of time.

From Zeus to Ra to Allah to any other deity that has come out of human history, the one thing that sets Yahweh apart to me is that here is a God who actually reached out in time at a point in human history to establish relationship with humans.

Though science has reached phenomenal heights in our time, it has at no point invalidated anything basic to Christian faith, and at no time in human history has the revelation of God in Christ shone upon the human scene with greater clarity and power.

Personally i think those specific prayers are a distraction most of the times we pray these prayers because its what we think we need and often thats not the case.The better way is to just trust the holy spirit let him lead i think we miss the awesomeness of doing it Gods way its easy not difficult.The struggle is difficult when we are walking by the flesh and trying to do it our way.When i got to the point where i said to the God i am not going to do it my way anymore and i submit to you because know whats best for me.Change me and when i feel the wrong desires or temptation to walk by the flesh i just say Lord you know i am weak and i can not live a christian life without you help me.As soon as i do that it is effortless theres no struggle thats how we should grow.I am excited with what God is doing in my life he has opened his word i am seeing the fruit of his life impacting mine and i am changing day by day.I am walking by faith and not slipping back into my old desires i know what it means to be an overcomer sin does not have dominion over me anymore.In myself i can not boast because it is the power of God at work in my life and i give all the praise back to God.brentnz

You have yet to directly respond to the specific points I've made at least three times now, i.e.: 1) the immutable good nature argument is simply unsupported definitional fiat (god can be equally described as malevolent or apathetic with equal support); 2) the immutable good nature argument presents a source of morality beyond god's direct control placing the argument in the god says so because it is good prong of the dilemma; and 3) the argument suggests god is not omnipotent because god is constrained to only a limited set of potential behaviors.

For man here is both a microcosm of the universe and at the same time and in certain significant respects an anticipation of what Teilhard called the Omega - point or God.

If we allow Blake's apocalyptic vision to stand witness to a radical Christian faith, there are at least seven points from within this perspective at which we can discern the uniqueness of Christianity: (1) a realization of the centrality of the fall and of the totality of fallenness throughout the cosmos; (2) the fall in this sense can not be known as a negative or finally illusory reality, for it is a process or movement that is absolutely real while yet being paradoxically identical with the process of redemption; and this because (3) faith, in its Christian expression, must finally know the cosmos as a kenotic and historical process of the Godhead's becoming incarnate in the concrete contingency of time and space; (4) insofar as this kenotic process becomes consummated in death, Christianity must celebrate death as the path to regeneration; (5) so likewise the ultimate salvation that will be effected by the triumph of the Kingdom of God can take place only through a final cosmic reversal; (6) nevertheless, the future Eschaton that is promised by Christianity is not a repetition of the primordial beginning, but is a new and final paradise in which God will have become all in all; and (7) faith, in this apocalyptic sense, knows that God's Kingdom is already dawning, that it is present in the words and person of Jesus, and that only Jesus is the «Universal Humanity,» the final coming together of God and man.

Upon careful analysis, at least ten such points become apparent: (1) Blake alone among Christian artists has created a whole mythology; (2) he was the first to discover the final loss of paradise, the first to acknowledge that innocence has been wholly swallowed up by experience; (3) no other Christian artist or seer has so fully directed his vision to history and experience; (4) to this day his is the only Christian vision that has openly or consistently accepted a totally fallen time and space as the paradoxical presence of eternity; (5) he stands alone among Christian artists in identifying the actual passion of sex as the most immediate epiphany of either a demonic or a redemptive «Energy,» just as he is the only Christian visionary who has envisioned the universal role of the female as both a redemptive and a destructive power; (6) his is the only Christian vision of the total kenotic movement of God or the Godhead; (7) he was the first Christian «atheist,» the first to unveil God as Satan; (8) he is the most Christocentric of Christian seers and artists; (9) only Blake has created a Christian vision of the full identity of Jesus with the individual human being (the «minute particular»); and (10) as the sole creator of a post-biblical Christian apocalypse, he has given Christendom its only vision of a total cosmic reversal of history.

Whether for the first time he was then convinced that he was the Messiah, whether he had already come to this conviction or had been coming to it and now felt that he had received the seal of God's approval, or whether he did not believe that he was the Messiah at all but considered himself only a prophet and forerunner of the coming one, his baptism was the turning point between his previous life of preparation and waiting and the active ministry in which he would henceforth be engaged.

By observing of the world stage on God's timeline, with all the man's advancements in tech and science, yet such corruption of human character, it only points to the fact that the time for the «man of sin» is at hand and his army is being prepared, for time of his arrival.

This understanding of God's relationship to the world has been enormously influential in contemporary philosophy of religion, especially since the publication in 1948 of The Divine Relativity from which the above quotation was taken.2 Although the consistency of divine relativity with the understanding of simultaneity in modem physics is a recognized point of contention, the question I wish to ask is whether the theory of divine relativity is metaphysically possible.3 How could it be possible for God to know and feel the different experiences of radically distinct subjects with equal vividness all at the same time?

The warm, Christian smiles were set aside at that point, and the time - delayed effect of our own indoctrination came into play: We dropped the guise of warm, friendly God - the - Son and reverted back to God - the - Father who looks at the entire world as described in Psalm 50:10 and says, «Everything I see is MINE.»

And at that point there is no reflective Christian who has not at some time asked the question, «Was God out of his mind to entrust this most precious treasure to people like us and churches like ours?»

Leibniz almost got the point in the very time of the first microscopic perceptions of micro-organisms, but he could not free himself from the mechanical model and so, though he held that every individual at least feels, he did not attribute even the least creativity, originative power, to any individual other than God, who thus had no proper place in the system.

Clive, you point out how others often don't understand what Jesus was saying; but while Jesus often labors to try and make things clear to the unbeliever («Oh, you of little faith) or at the very least the author tries to make it clear for us in retrospect (At the time they didn't understand that he spoke of this...), in this case Jesus switches from something that might be figurative to essentially say «no, I seriously mean this» and it concludes not with Jesus saying «don't go away, this is what I actually mean» but confirming that people would refuse to accept that God intended for them to actually fill themselves with the life that He offered so they stopped following hiat the very least the author tries to make it clear for us in retrospect (At the time they didn't understand that he spoke of this...), in this case Jesus switches from something that might be figurative to essentially say «no, I seriously mean this» and it concludes not with Jesus saying «don't go away, this is what I actually mean» but confirming that people would refuse to accept that God intended for them to actually fill themselves with the life that He offered so they stopped following hiAt the time they didn't understand that he spoke of this...), in this case Jesus switches from something that might be figurative to essentially say «no, I seriously mean this» and it concludes not with Jesus saying «don't go away, this is what I actually mean» but confirming that people would refuse to accept that God intended for them to actually fill themselves with the life that He offered so they stopped following him.

In that proof of the existence or non-existence of God in unattainable, at some point in time common sense must be factored into the equation.

only reason y i say this is because of Santification, once we give our life to the Lord, we streight way (so to speak) begin the process of Santification, this is Christ making us like him, and this Is SUFFERING It does nt happen over night, but for the duration of our time here, as you have said, its sort of like sin being done unto us, and we are handleing it just like Christ did, (with Love) of coarse with the help of the Holy Spirit, This Does NOT feel Good At ALL since our soulful flesh is Corrupt, (but our spirit is saved) This is were your trails and tribulation, your own desire, and All play apart, Now Moment by Moment we choose by our own will, And Jesus helps in these times, as he was tempeted, but without sin, The devil can do nothing but try and decieve the Christian into thinking that he has to work for his salvation as you have said, this thing here is about your Inheritance In Christ, Its gonna be some show nought broke christian in Heaven, because their trying to set of for themseleve trasure on earth, and their is going to be weeping and gnat of teeth, but it wont be, because of their going to Hell, It will be cause they miss out on what they could have had, and it is Devistation, cause they waste so much time, and they wont be able to attend the wedding, supper of the lamb, they wont be, getting the position over city, galacy, ectt... just check it out some of the points i have made, God Bless you!

Nor does it mean that some particular situation which certain men at a given time hold to be evil would necessarily be as evil from God's point of view.

It didn't happen millions of billions of years ago, but at the same time, a «day» isn't really a 24 - hour day (p. 65) and the only real point of the creation account is to tell us that God made mankind in His image (p. 70).

Of course, in the process of writing this, I have issues with «intervene», as it points to a God who is separate from creation and who only interacts at select times, rather than a God who is the foundation for, and permeates all of creatioOf course, in the process of writing this, I have issues with «intervene», as it points to a God who is separate from creation and who only interacts at select times, rather than a God who is the foundation for, and permeates all of creatioof writing this, I have issues with «intervene», as it points to a God who is separate from creation and who only interacts at select times, rather than a God who is the foundation for, and permeates all of creatioof creation.

At the same time, she writes in a later blog that the main point she wished to make in her earlier article is that atheists like her don't need belief in the biblical God in order to maintain certain ethical principles by reason alone, in the light of experience, and thus in a «conservative» manner.

But the best of men in the best times are sinners, desiring at some points to have their own way and exalt themselves above God and their fellow men.

«To exalt the crucified Jesus to the right hand of God» was a statement which implied another, namely, «to raise from the dead», and the two seem to have been used almost synonymously at first.49 At this point we must take note of the widespread belief in the resurrection of the dead at the end - time, already described in the previous two chapterat first.49 At this point we must take note of the widespread belief in the resurrection of the dead at the end - time, already described in the previous two chapterAt this point we must take note of the widespread belief in the resurrection of the dead at the end - time, already described in the previous two chapterat the end - time, already described in the previous two chapters.

At this point God, though on a throne in heaven and outside of time and nonexistent in a physical body, was somehow walking in the garden and called for his two people creations.

Divine causality that can be localized historically at certain points in space and time, appears rather to be what characterizes the supernatural operation of God in sacred history, in contrast to the natural relation of God to his world.

Or must we conclude that he was as literalistic in this matter as the early Church, and expected a world historical act of God at a chronological point of time in the near future, as the Church expected her Lord's return?

That's one of the reasons it fails as a moral compass» God was revealed to a people at a point in time and we look at that point with today's eyes.

At the end of a gripping account, he places the Believer before a point of cardinal importance: the continuity of a Revelation emanating from the same God, with modes of expression that differ in the course of time.

Just because Wars had been waged in the name of religion doesn't make the point of it Wrong,,, otherwise why does it say (He who loves me, keeps my commandments) almost at the same time as it says (I give you a new commandment, love...) in short, Yes, Jesus is what matters, but to know Jesus I need His word, the Bible, I need a relationship with Him, I need to understand What He wants me to be Like (Be Holy as your Father in Heaven) which is not just an old testament quote, but a new Testament as well,,, at the end, if Religion was so pointless and to be hated, why Would God ask us to test the spirits, why does he tell us (by their fruits you would know them.)

My longing to be free from this is causing a lot of uncomfortable and painful doubts about my relationship with God to the point I wonder whether I am even saved at times.

«The Bible,» writes Enns, «is the story of God told from the limited point of view of real people living at a certain place and time....

Pleas know — I am not trying to put anything in your wound... I am one that made it through my pit (Psalm 40) I stopped blaming circumstances and spent many hours mad, crying, angry all the stuff at God... I don't know why or how but I ended up in helping situations during the hardest time... it was crazy... I spoke at churches that were driven — failing and those not driven thriving (but those thriving had vision and direction) but not driven to the point of believing they were the best or anything like that.

To carry through the process of rethinking the account of actual occasions and eternal objects in the light of the full doctrine of God will be in line with the direction in which Whitehead's own thought was moving at this point and will also alter in subtle, but at times important, ways the precise form of the doctrine of God.

This transference through history could equate to this perception of inspired works but could also only mean that the inspiration at one point was there as God interacted on lives of the time.

God is outside of time thus he exist at every point in time.

They believed that the God of Israel had fulfilled his promises at this point in time; that his presence had drawn near to men; that through the man Jesus the love of God had reached out to men, accepting them as sons (through no merit of their own), transforming them into new people; that therefore it was right and proper to ascribe the work of Jesus to God, to see in his person «God with us».

Phrygian to me i sense that you are struggling with issues in your mind that you cant reconcile and these issues are affecting what you believe in your heart and therefore your faith in God.I had something similar happen to me recently regarding the story of the demon possessed man at one point the demons begged Jesus to cast them into the pigs does that mean that Jesus was implicated with the work of satan.It cast my mind into doubt and then i began to question who God is.I prayed and sort the holy spirit for an answer the answer i got was that Gods character never changes he is always holy righteous and sovereign why else would satan ask for his permission.So the answer was that he allowed satans purpose to prevail so that we can see that satans intention is always to destroy it may well have been that the pigs were his anyway.As they were for the gentile nations who offered the pigs to their demon Gods.Just as satan can not change who he is the destroyer the thief the liar God can not change who he is when we realise that despite what we see going on in the world God is still the same yesterday today and forever.The time is coming when those that have hurt others will be judged for there wickedness as we serve a holy and just God.Just as it was in the times of Noah so it is with this this generation that as the wickedness reachs its zenith then the Lord will return to judge the nations.He is coming again and we need to be ready it is not a time to be caught sleeping.brentnz

Third, it is noteworthy that in Man's Vision of God Hartshorne distinguishes between God's «purpose as laid down before all the worlds, or rather before each and every world» — which is part of God's eternal and unchanging aspect — and «the more and more particular purposes which mark the approach to, and..., the achievements of purpose which mark arrival at, any given point of time» (MVG 237, my italics).

Regardless of how one translates the text, these issues do not affect in any way the main point I am arguing here, that the people at the time of the flood told God to depart from them, to leave them alone.

It is not simply that at one unique point in the history of the world the eternal God comes to us in the form of Being - in - time; it is that Christ enters our evil age, our alienation from God.

In any case, the appearance of Elijah and Moses in our text is thought to point to Jesus as God's eschatological prophet who also would be assumed into heaven and then would return at the end of time.

God got the chain started by creating the creatures — in «days» that we can not even fathom, worded that way because we CAN NOT understand it at this time so why blow us away in the frst Book of the Bible... that wasn't the point.

[21] We come to see that at the heart of the sacramentality of the word of God is the mystery of the incarnation itself: «the Word became flesh» (Jn 1:14), the reality of the revealed mystery is offered to us in the «flesh» of the Son... The sacramental character of revelation points in turn to the history of salvation, to the way that the word of God enters time and space, and speaks to men and women, who are called to accept his gift in faith.»

i was a devout believer once... i have read the bible many times from an unbiased point of view — the issues came when i asked questions and people kept sayin you HAVE TO TAKE IT ON FAITH... if faith is all thats needed, why the book, why the 10 commanments????? i have seen horrors in life, and in my lifetime — stuff that if god existed then i find him no more worth worshiping then the pipe that helps me sleep at night.