Sentences with phrase «god in the religious sense»

Not exact matches

Religious believers are likely to get further in discourse with the current generation of secular academics by 1) continually demonstrating, as Posner himself seems to intuit, that only a moral theory founded on God can actually «work,» in the sense of bridging the gap between «is» and «ought»; and 2) demonstrating the inherent self «contradictions of the moral theories advocated by the «secular liberals.»

Religions incorporated and codified these basic social values and skills, and quickly learned to take credit for them — as if, without the religion, we would be doomed to not have them — although we see them in every human society, including hunter - gather tribes with no sense of gods as we understand them After many centuries of religious domination, enforced through pain of death, ostracization or other social sanctions, allowing religion to take credit, as well as failing to question other religious claims — has become a cultural habit.

You are correct, if one assumes atheism or a fundamentally different religious cosmology, that the possibility I stated will seem like a false cause (this unemployment came later, therefore that cosmic battle caused it), but again, that would come down to the age - old debate over whether there is a God v. Satan battle in the classical Christian sense (do either God or Satan exist and, if so, how?).

To get a sense of Russian religious life, consider the story of the «imiaslavtsy» (Name - Glorifiers), a group of monks and theologians who accepted the discovery of the starets (elder) Ilarion that «in the Name of God, God Himself is present.»

So how, in a society like the United States where the right of an individual to worship or not worship the God they choose is a fundamental and constitutional right, does a religious person reconcile the sense of preeminence with a pluralistic culture?

So could you honestly say that you don't think anyone has ever become religious, especially much later on in life as the end isn't far off (and even statistics that common sense would tell you should trend the opposite way, ie, someone who's gone 70, 75 years not believing in god or heaven, decides then to become a devote Christian?

There are ways to be able to reason morality as objective (not in the usual religious sense however) without attributing it to a higher moral authority (god).

It was not in our modern sense of sociological utopianism; but it was something vastly profounder, a religious ethic which involved a social as well as a personal application, but within the framework of the beloved society of the Kingdom of God.

Wright notes that «Israel was thus constituted, from one point of view, as the people who heard God's word — in call, promise, liberation, guidance, judgment, forgiveness, further judgment, renewed liberation, and renewed promise... This is what I mean by denying that scripture can be reduced to the notion of the «record of a revelation,» in the sense of a mere writing down of earlier, and assumedly prior, «religious experience.»

But the idea of God in its common - sense or religious meaning may not require this.

The special logic of this theory, after all, is that the Christian philosopher — having surmounted the «aesthetic,» «ethical,» and even in a sense «religious» stages of human existence — is uniquely able to enact a return, back to the things of earth, back to finitude, back to the aesthetic; having found the highest rationality of being in God's kenosis — His self - outpouring — in the Incarnation, the Christian philosopher is reconciled to the particularity of flesh and form, recognizes all of creation as a purely gratuitous gift of a God of infinite love, and is able to rejoice in the levity of a world created and redeemed purely out of God's «pleasure.»

Progressive religious folks of all stripes tend to share a post-triumphalism (a sense that it's time to move beyond the old triumphalist paradigm in which one religion is The Right Path to God and all the other paths are wrong), as well as an inclination toward reading our sacred texts through interpretive lenses which take into account changing social mores and changing understandings of justice.

This is true in the sense that belief relates us to the Absolute Future, makes us recognize it, but not in the sense that in belief we attain a religious experience of God.

by definition belief in any single God or religious systems excludes belief in others... In that sense, Christians are no better / worse than Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi's, Sikh's, ATHEISTS, etc, etcin any single God or religious systems excludes belief in others... In that sense, Christians are no better / worse than Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi's, Sikh's, ATHEISTS, etc, etcin others... In that sense, Christians are no better / worse than Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi's, Sikh's, ATHEISTS, etc, etcIn that sense, Christians are no better / worse than Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi's, Sikh's, ATHEISTS, etc, etc..

by definition belief in any single God or religious systems excludes belief in others... In that sense, Christians are no better / worse than Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi's, Sikh's, etc, etc.in any single God or religious systems excludes belief in others... In that sense, Christians are no better / worse than Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi's, Sikh's, etc, etc.in others... In that sense, Christians are no better / worse than Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi's, Sikh's, etc, etc.In that sense, Christians are no better / worse than Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi's, Sikh's, etc, etc...

I may not believe in any one particular religion, and I certainly don't believe in god, but even I believe that most religious people have common sense enough to avoid the type of hystaria that doomsdayers espouse themselves to.

After all that has been said, it is still possible to claim that the concept of divine relationality is powerful and reflects important religious sentiments.14 It certainly dulls the edge of the theodicy problem by removing the sense of injustice immediately apparent in the idea of a blissful God creating suffering humans.

The name Muhammad is thus used in a non-sectarian, trans - religious and symbolic sense to refer to a higher, deeper and essential God - man correspondence exhibited by sainthood.

Whitehead, Religion in the Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926 and new edition, with the same pagination, published in New York: Fordham University Press, 1996): «Thus religious experience can not be taken as contributing to metaphysics any direct evidence for a personal God in any sense transcendent or creative» (74).

All this religious violence occurring in the world today could be completely negated with a little practical sense: religion doesn't matter in the light of science OR in the light of God.

With all the evidence, religious people ought to be intelligent design (I mean god - guided evolution by this) supporters at worst, though I would hope that after some serious thoughts on the moral paradoxes induced by belief in the «divine» people would come to their senses.

In order to make sense of the Qur» anic passages about jihad, for instance, it is helpful to know more about Islamic understandings of God, revelation, and the religious and social requirements for the faithful.

And he wasn't a christian in the religious sense either, he was actually an athiest that saw a need to believe and pray to god as a weekness.

Waiting on God is «work» in the religious sense of being actively mindful of God's presence and of our accountability.

The Hebrews, taught by their religious leaders, regarded themselves as in some sense God's special people.

Their ways of doing this are most varied, ranging from a sense of acting in accordance with the «rightness in things» (as in much Chinese religion), through a mystical identification of the deepest self or atman with the cosmic reality or brahma (as in Hinduism), or a «blowing - out» of individual selfhood by sharing in the bliss of Nirvana (as in most varieties of Buddhism), to the sense of fellowship or communion with God found in our own Jewish - Christian religious tradition.

In George McKenna's review of While God Is Marching On: The Religious World of Civil War Soldiers (December 2001), he neglects to lay the least bit of blame for the Civil War on the heightened sense of self «righteousness instilled in both the North and the South by their respective churcheIn George McKenna's review of While God Is Marching On: The Religious World of Civil War Soldiers (December 2001), he neglects to lay the least bit of blame for the Civil War on the heightened sense of self «righteousness instilled in both the North and the South by their respective churchein both the North and the South by their respective churches.

Thirdly if someone did come to try and end my life, I would have the sense to know there is no god who will step in to help, So I better be prepared to defend my own life against religious idiots if necessary.

It is not necessary for us to make a detailed examination of the various sorts of ritual associated with these meals; it will suffice if we see that the Jew worshiped God not only in the synagogue and in the Temple, but also in his home, where families or groups of friends met regularly for a holy supper, often held in connection with great festivals of the Jewish religious year, in which bread and wine, eaten and drunk, were believed to have a peculiar significance in establishing anew a sense of the covenant which God had made with his chosen people.

Charles Hartshorne, the most gifted interpreter of Whitehead and the leading philosopher / theologian of process theology, asks in A Natural Theology for Our Time, «What is the religious sense of god?»

Not, of course, in the modernist sense that Christianity is only the full development of a natural religious need, but because God in his grace, in virtue of his universal salvific will, has already long since offered the reality of Christianity to those human beings, so that it is possible and probable that they have already accepted it without explicitly realizing this.

As he parses it, «under God» is not in any sense a current, efficacious act of religious devotion; it is rather a historically «descriptive phrase,» taking account of the attitudes and beliefs of our ancestors.

I am spiritual in the sense that i believe in God as a higher power but I am not religious in the sense that i do nt practice an «organized» religion.

Moreover, if «God» is correctly understood as in some sense referring to reality itself, its referent, if any, is evidently ubiquitous, and this implies that the experience of God is universal as well as direct — something unavoidably had not only by mystics or the religious but by every human being simply as such, indeed, by any experiencing being whatever, in each and every one of its experiences of anything at all.

In this sense God is incarnated in every religious tradition through every image or symbol which effectively expresses its deepest response to God's leading, although the Christian can confess that for him Christ, the incarnation of God, is supremely exemplified in JesuIn this sense God is incarnated in every religious tradition through every image or symbol which effectively expresses its deepest response to God's leading, although the Christian can confess that for him Christ, the incarnation of God, is supremely exemplified in Jesuin every religious tradition through every image or symbol which effectively expresses its deepest response to God's leading, although the Christian can confess that for him Christ, the incarnation of God, is supremely exemplified in Jesuin Jesus.

In any event, in a closely parallel discussion of the very same question, of how problematic terms like «know» or «love» as applied to God are to be classified, he in no way appeals to psychicalism, but argues instead that, although they are «in such application not literal in the simple sense in which «relative» can be,» they nevertheless «may be literal if or in so far as we have religious intuition» (1970a, 155In any event, in a closely parallel discussion of the very same question, of how problematic terms like «know» or «love» as applied to God are to be classified, he in no way appeals to psychicalism, but argues instead that, although they are «in such application not literal in the simple sense in which «relative» can be,» they nevertheless «may be literal if or in so far as we have religious intuition» (1970a, 155in a closely parallel discussion of the very same question, of how problematic terms like «know» or «love» as applied to God are to be classified, he in no way appeals to psychicalism, but argues instead that, although they are «in such application not literal in the simple sense in which «relative» can be,» they nevertheless «may be literal if or in so far as we have religious intuition» (1970a, 155in no way appeals to psychicalism, but argues instead that, although they are «in such application not literal in the simple sense in which «relative» can be,» they nevertheless «may be literal if or in so far as we have religious intuition» (1970a, 155in such application not literal in the simple sense in which «relative» can be,» they nevertheless «may be literal if or in so far as we have religious intuition» (1970a, 155in the simple sense in which «relative» can be,» they nevertheless «may be literal if or in so far as we have religious intuition» (1970a, 155in which «relative» can be,» they nevertheless «may be literal if or in so far as we have religious intuition» (1970a, 155in so far as we have religious intuition» (1970a, 155).

The sense of «God» may have been lost or may have at least diminished in some corners of modern consciousness, but the religious tendency to seek some manifestation of ultimacy has not perished.

Jesus» teaching was not «social,» in our modern sense of sociological utopianism; but it was something vastly profounder, a religious ethic which involved a social as well as a personal application, but within the framework of the beloved society of the Kingdom of God; and in its relations to the pagan world outside it was determined wholly from within that beloved society — as the rest of the New Testament and most of the other early Christian literature takes for granted.

Only a new religious sense, rooted in a new certainty of God, can confront it.

I mean, nothing else makes sense in life, but this is obviously God's will and not some made up, random, crazy ramblings of the religious nut jobs that are Muslims.

In the lives of women there exists a unique opportunity to develop a sense of God, and there exists something of the essence of God which, though made known to us in Christ, we missed because women were excluded from the ranks of church hierarchy and demeaned in religious traditioIn the lives of women there exists a unique opportunity to develop a sense of God, and there exists something of the essence of God which, though made known to us in Christ, we missed because women were excluded from the ranks of church hierarchy and demeaned in religious traditioin Christ, we missed because women were excluded from the ranks of church hierarchy and demeaned in religious traditioin religious tradition.

So in what sense can we continue to proclaim the special authority of Christian revelation while at the same time fully embracing the implications of our two axioms: on the one hand that our religious language, including our Christological categories, is never adequately representative of God, and on the other that it is always conditioned by historical relativity?

In what sense can Christians call Jesus Christ the decisive revelation of God, the savior of all humanity, or the Lord of all the universe, without treading on the religious toes of Hindus or Buddhists or others who sense no such universality in ChrisIn what sense can Christians call Jesus Christ the decisive revelation of God, the savior of all humanity, or the Lord of all the universe, without treading on the religious toes of Hindus or Buddhists or others who sense no such universality in Chrisin Christ?

Ironically perhaps; religious thinking does combine with social science to suggest that being poor is simply a feature of all societies and, in this sense, can be understood as part of God's plan for humankind.

lol, yes clay i am an atheist... i created the sun whorshipping thing to have argument against religion from a religious stand point... however, the sun makes more sense then something you can't see or feel — the sun also gives free energy... your god once did that for the jews, my gives it to the human race as well as everything else on the planet, fuk even the planet is nothing without the sun... but back to your point — yes it is very hypocritical of me, AND thats the point, every religious person i have ever met has and on a constant basis broken the tenets of there faith without regard for there souls — it seems to only be the person's conscience that dictates what is right and wrong... the belief in a god figure is just because its tradition to and plus every else believes so its always to be part of the group instead of an outsider — that is sadly human nature to be part of the group.

Many Indian religious teachers remind us of the limitations of our language but at the same time they insist that we can sense our oneness with God, who is found in the very depth of our being.

A genuine doctrine of God would be in some fundamental sense in continuity either with established conceptions of God or with symbols of God in Christianity or other religious traditions.

If I am correct, philosophical theology must maintain the freedom of God in order to account for a fundamental element of our religious experience, the sense of God's faithfulness.

In other words, these biblical stories, which are not self - conscious literary creations but genuine emergents from the experience of a religious community — these stories are attempts to express an understanding of the relation in which God actually stands to human life, and they are true in any really important sense only if that understanding is correcIn other words, these biblical stories, which are not self - conscious literary creations but genuine emergents from the experience of a religious community — these stories are attempts to express an understanding of the relation in which God actually stands to human life, and they are true in any really important sense only if that understanding is correcin which God actually stands to human life, and they are true in any really important sense only if that understanding is correcin any really important sense only if that understanding is correct.

Is it the modern religious Christian's inability to speak about a God who is actually present in the world which is the ground of his refusal to share a uniquely modern sense of guilt?