Not exact matches
In a sense, when
humans get punished for their own
sin, God
gets punished as well.
In this never - ceasing process, often frustrated, often
getting bogged down in the mire of
human sin, but always rising again — in this process of appropriation, even demythologizing has its proper place.
Topher Where you
got the idea that s8x is a
sin and not a basic
human instinct could be your problem.
Without the grace of Christ, who makes God's reconciliation a reality despite
human sin, the devastation of relationships might
get the best of us.
Sin itself is a demonic power, alien to man in his true nature, which has
got entrance into
human life and has brought it into subjection.
In order to
get a clearer perspective on the development of the doctrine of love we must examine the main themes of love in the Old Testament, including the covenant with the Hebrews as God's act of love, the
human love required in faithfulness to the covenant, and the suffering of God as a result of
human sin in failing to keep the covenant.
Much of
sin gets into the
human spirit under the guise of love; but the
sin is not always the coercion of the other, it is the perversion of goals, the misuse of power, and the self - justification which grows not from love but from its absence.
Sin is always knocking at our door, and the harder we try to resist it in our own
human strength the worse it
gets.
A man does not have to feel less than
human to realize his
sin; oppositely, he has to realize that he
gets no special vindication for his
sin.
Meanwhile, another sequence in which Talorel has to atone for the
sins he has committed as a
human is a great opportunity to play on how people are inherently sinful, how we seemingly can't
get through an entire day without committing some sort of
sin in the eyes of the Church or God, but that
gets flown through quickly.
pat - «Similarly many environmental activists believe that man's influence is a form of
sin and nature (Gaea) will soon strike back...» You can phrase the position of a fictitious group any way you want of course, without rebuttal, because they don't really exist, though there are people who fit the description — especially if by «many» you mean more than three — but the more accurate reality is most of the
human beings you would lump under the rubric «environmentalist» would more accurately be described as believing that short - sighted and greedy
human attempts at total control and domination and complete disregard for the healthof the environment have
gotten us out of balance with what was an interlocking web of balanced and dynamic systems, and would appear to have unbalanced many of those systems as well, including the still poorly understood cycles of climate; or weather, as we laymen call it.