Sentences with phrase «idea of god at»

To say, therefore, that Jesus took the Jewish idea of God at its best but had no new idea of his own presents a false antithesis.

At the conclusion of one of her books of philosophy, The Fire and the Sun: Why Plato Banished the Artists, Murdoch summarizes her view of the artist's role in modern life: «To present the idea of God at all, even as a myth, is a consolation.»

Instead, he criticizes from the perspective of Christian revelation those ideas of God at which philosophy, including Christian philosophy, has arrived.

Not exact matches

You tend to side with some idea of a personal God and idealize that God as lovey - dovey — at other times (though far less) you are clearly «Atheish».

But spouting the idea that god created and designed everything in an environment such as NASA means that you are intentionally suspending rational thought, and in this kind of environment that seems, to me at least, unacceptable.

yo the thing is not about believing or not, is the fact that if we don't believe then we are worthless living garbage who occupy a space in the universe only to create crap and pollution, in that kind of case we would better be recycled into some industrial material for a better use than eating and living like cattle, but if there is a god we acquire a divine status and a purpose to continue to exist beyond afterlife or at least the idea of it, which would give life a sense right?

For crying out loud — why would ANYONE bother following the ideas of bronze - age people who all thought multiple gods created a small, flat Earth sitting at the center of a tiny universe rotating around it... daily.

Atheist reject the idea of a god and believe their view to be true or they would be agnostic unless they choose no stance at all of a god that of which would require unknowing of what the term «god» means so it would fall under a belief and since they can't prove that a god doesn't exist then by definition it requires faith for their view, meaning it would effect their view of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe if a god was proven to be true.

Todays Religions are tomorrows Mythologies, During the days of the Greek and Roman empires their Gods were as real to them as our Gods are to us today, Yet today we find their Gods a silly idea Given a few thousand years our ancestors will laugh at the silliness of people following God / Jesus while they follow the deity of their day.

I wouldn't call Spenser a greater poet, but he saw the human condition and our often - anguished journey toward God in a richer, more humane way than Milton did, who at the end of the day was more interested in ideas than people.

So at the end of the day, even as a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ (the name Christian has been so stained, refuse to call myself one to distance myself from traitors to God like Bush and just about every Conservative American), I'd vote for an astheist with good ideas and was brave enough to push for the interests of people, not corporations, then I would vote for them.

But it is a little astonishing that, in a three - thousand - word article in First Things, Hitchens devotes just a couple of sentences to the idea at the core of the AA program: the Higher Power, otherwise «God.»

If you feel that that you can so affirmitvely conclude that there is no God then you would at least have to have to start with very definitive idea of what God is and what are God's intentions.

They move chunks of information around in ways nothing else can — as payloads that convey intolerance, suppression of ideas and opinions, even violence at times, and persecution of dissenters, all with the weight behind it of an all - powerful God and it's eternal rewards and punishments that are conveniently hidden in an unknowable afterlife.

It forbids, for example, arriving in metaphysics at the notion of a God that would not be the exemplification of metaphysical ideas.

@Kev: «If you feel that that you can so affirmitvely conclude that there is no God then you would at least have to have to start with very definitive idea of what God is and what are God's intentions.»

If your god is real, why hasn't he inspired every sincere seeker to at least understand one or two basic aspects of his existence right, such as the idea that there is only one god as opposed to multiple gods?

At what point did the idea that all people are created in the image of God lose its currency and appeal?

And, Jeremy, would you please look at topic of commonly - heard ideas that may or may not have biblical basis — one mentioned in these comments — is that God chooses the time of our death.

Only faith derived from Christian preaching is able to deduce the certainty of God acting upon us even from those fragments, which otherwise would remain only a small part of the history of ideas, and quite a problematic part at that.»

Now, thanks to his technology, man has acquired power, has got rid of his guardians and of the idea of God's fatherhood, and at the same time has acquired a new, a rational and scientific mentality.

It will be seen that the new doctrine requires careful and somewhat elaborate distinctions, and yet, if some of its supporters are right, the doctrine is nothing at all but the analysis of the simple idea that God is «the perfectly loving individual,» in all respects possessed of the properties which this idea requires, even if non-perfection in some respects be among the requirements.

Reinforcing in advance the claim I have put forth at the end of Part Two, Hartshorne went on to point out: «Just as the Stoics said the ideal was to have good will toward all but not in such fashion as to depend in any [221] degree for happiness upon their fortunes or misfortunes, so Christian theologians, who scarcely accepted this idea in their ethics, nevertheless adhered to it in characterizing God.»

But the idea that if a man pleases God then God will especially shield him belongs to the dim twilight of religion and not to Christianity at all.

Once we establish the idea that Eden was perfect, rather than it being Good and at best, Very Good, we begin a frantic journey of a restoration of perfection and salvation is finding a way to forgive fallen broken creation for its lapse from perfection so we can be loved by «God» again.

Oh, the Calvinists could make perfect sense of it all with a wave of a hand and a swift, confident explanation about how Zarmina had been born in sin and likely predestined to spend eternity in hell to the glory of an angry God (they called her a «vessel of destruction»); about how I should just be thankful to be spared the same fate since it's what I deserve anyway; about how the Asian tsunami was just another one of God's temper tantrums sent to remind us all of His rage at our sin; about how I need not worry because «there is not one maverick molecule in the universe» so every hurricane, every earthquake, every war, every execution, every transaction in the slave trade, every rape of a child is part of God's sovereign plan, even God's idea; about how my objections to this paradigm represented unrepentant pride and a capitulation to humanism that placed too much inherent value on my fellow human beings; about how my intuitive sense of love and morality and right and wrong is so corrupted by my sin nature I can not trust it.

In this column we hope to chronicle some of the statements and initiatives that, by the grace of God and in accordance with ideas articulated by the Second Vatican Council, are aimed at the «New Evangelisation» of our culture.

It is entirely possible, and has always been possible, to be an atheist as a Boy Scout, if you can accept the basic idea of a moral something - or - other to which we should hold ourselves accountable, as long as you are comfortable calling it God at least as a metaphor.

There a plenty of non-trinitarian Christian denominations like the Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Members Church of God International, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, La Luz del Mundo, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarian Universalist Christians and the United Church of God... The very idea of the Trinity didn't become Christian dogma until some 300 years after Christ's death, and even then it was quite a debate at the Council of Nicea...

Stephen Fry speaking about atheists: «The glory — anything — we take credit for what is great about man and we take blame for what is dreadful about man, we neither grovel or apologise at the feet of a god, or are so infantile as to project the idea that we once had a father as human beings and we therefore should have a divine one too.

But behind Lincoln's understanding of history was his idea of a God «who at times seems to want to frustrate the Statesman» (John Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics [Basic, 1984]-RRB- Lincoln «doubted that man could ever grasp God's will and therefore believed that human action would always be estranged from divine intention» (p. 330) Lincoln divined that God is both hidden and revealed.

Yes, in particular, it is LUDICROUS that this «god» «chose» an arrogant people in a Middle Eastern desert at a time when there was no internet and when those people thought the world was flat and consisted of the Mediterranean Sea and its surrounding lands (i.e., they had NO IDEA about the «New World», Antarctica.

The two strands in theology, then, are as follows: There is the popular or operative religious idea of the God of love, perfect in lovingness, and hence all - understanding and everlasting, so that nothing has ever been or ever can be deprived of his love while existent at all.

You're asking them to believe in a bunch of stuff attached to the God idea, some of it quite harmful, that wouldn't make any sense at all without believing in God, right?

This is the concept of that beyond which thought can not go, in which it completes its search for understanding, at which it really affirms only itself, and through which it relates all else.2 Leaving aside his views on its historical character, this is what R. G. Collingwood seems to be suggesting when he says that Anselm's argument does not prove «that because our idea of God is an ideal of id quo maius cogitari nequit therefore God exists, but that because our idea of God is an idea of id quo maius cogitari nequit we stand committed to belief in God's existence.

There's also ridiculous threats from God in there that reflect on the knowledge and intelligence of anyone at the time who would accept the idea of unicorns, dragons, or angels that killed tens of thousands of people.

At least according to YOUR definition of «god» perhaps.By placing your «god» outside of the known universe, you then protect your flawed idea of a god from scrutiny, simply saying god doesn't have to play by the rules, is pure speculation in a) the existance of a «god» and b) where or how this «god» exists if not in our existance.

It has been suggested (and the idea has merit) that, at the moment our sins were placed on Jesus» shoulders, God's spirit left because He could not abide the presence of sin.

At the time, I really bought into the idea that tithing was obeying God, but when I studied the Bible, I found that one of the main purposes for the tithes was to provide for the poor.

The idea of a kingdom of Satan at war with the kingdom of God, and temporarily dominant in the world, appears in one Greek manuscript in an addition to the long ending of Mark: «The limit of the years of the authority of Satan is fulfilled.»

You're confused, Demuth.The idea that «everyone is a child of God «has no Biblical basis whatsoever; who told you otherwise?Only those born again in Christ via the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit are children of God in the Bilical sense.If you are going to comment on biblical issues at least get your theology straight; otherwise you sound just as silly as the other God - haters on this blog.

Freedom of speech... i am all for it, what i do nt get is where the come up with the idea that God and Jesus Christ is a Myth??? At that point, what is the point of your religion?

All of his rambling above seems to be a poor attempt at reconciling the flaws with religion with the ingrained idea that god must exist.

At last, the gorgeous surface of things comes to appear as a true mystery, a sacrament destined to transform our imaginations, leading us to reread the world as a poem produced by the one idea, the one who imagines things into being, the sun who is also and always the Son of God.

In this situation how could we give meaningful content to the idea that God extends subjective aims to the various actors in the little drama we have constructed, that is, provides subjective aims which have the potential, at least, to affect the outcome of events, and have, therefore, the potential to affect the character of God's future experience?

The fact that Christians actually engage in completely selfish motives, even to the idea of being saved in order to avoid their god's eternal wrath, and grow perverse as masochists at best.

And furthermore, the devil's idea of authority is at odds with that of God.

It seeks «to preserve the idea of the divine as the true concern of religion» and at the same time «to destroy the reality of the idea of God and thereby also the reality of our relation to Him.»

Thus there is no need for us to be alarmed at such ideas as that of God «animating» the world of matter, or of the whole world «becoming incarnate»: we shall find plenty of parallels in St Paul and in the traditional theological doctrine of the omnipresence of God.

Evolutionary theists would concur with the IDT advocates that at some point the search for adequate explanation must appeal to the notion of divine intelligence — or better, divine wisdom — if the idea of God is to have any relevance at all, However, they are not obsessed with the idea of design.