Sentences with phrase «idea of any god who»

So the story proceeds, in a vein of pure imagination, stripped of all puerile fancies, to evoke the idea of a God who «spake and it was done».

Since «our modern concept of the universe is of a selfcontained, intradependent whole, the idea of a God who is «outside» the universe is scarcely thinkable today.»

The idea of a God who not only sympathizes with all we feel and endure for our fellow men, but who will pour new life into our too languid love, and give firmness to our vacillating purpose, is an extension and multiplication of the effects produced by human sympathy.

Classical theism did not really conceptualize the idea of a God who «is love.

Once one has given up as incredible and impossible (save for mythological purposes) the Greek idea of a god who comes down to earth and walks about as a human being, there are two possibilities open for the interpretation of Jesus Christ.

They had a common sense that accepted the idea of a God who intervened in human affairs on specific occasions for specific purposes.

Even though one does not establish the concept of the preservation of all values, one has not thereby disproved the validity of the idea of a God who is in some sense concrete and consequent — even though this God may not be Whitehead's.

In the paper published here on Thomas and the three poets, he speaks of the «fundamental silliness» of the idea of a God who predetermines the creatures to be sinful and then punishes them for it everlastingly.

He came to recognize that «Christianity introduced the world to the idea of a God who suffers,» and went on to confess that «I can worship a God who hates suffering but can not eliminate it, more easily that I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die, for whatever exalted reasion.»

But my biggest problem with all these stories is with the idea of a god who generally tries to hide anything that could be seen as real evidence (because you need faith) and then slips up and shows it every now and then in very culturally and belief specific ways.

Maimonides» attempt to expunge anthropomorphism thus can not be reconciled with this biblical idea of a God who showed an impassioned love for one particular human being and his descendants.

I guess I was supposed to be moved by the sacrifice of Jesus; instead I was repulsed by the idea of a God who would will such a thing.»

The idea of a God who always seeks compensation, a God who always wants a pound of flesh, is not simply a tactical problem in a chess game among professional theologians; it provokes a crisis of trust among the ordinary faithful too.

And it is the idea of a God who causes or deliberately tolerates evil for the sake of a higher good that justifiably arouses our sense of indignation.

These filmmakers might have homed in on a disturbing truth that many of the devout refuse to confront: that people are actively fulfilled by the intolerance of their faith, resenting the idea of a God who loves everyone.

Not exact matches

Although he often expressed this vision obliquely, he was relentless in his criticism of those who despised faith as an anachronism: «I am not afraid to say that a devout and God - fearing man is superior as a human specimen to a restless mocker who is glad to style himself an «intellectual,» proud of his cleverness in using ideas which he claims as his own though he acquired them in a pawnshop in exchange for simplicity of heart....

It's sad that people who hate the idea of God have to come on to a belief blog and tease and put down people who love God.

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?

But no matter what the commercialized idea of Easter is, to Christians it is still regarded as a holy day to remember the salvation God extends to all who believe in and accept Him.

Anyway, people can get the idea to look it up themselves if they want to see more names of scientist who believe in God....

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.

It's the 0.001 % of them who hold rallies, blow themselves up, and go on television / radio (in the case of Fox News, start their own network) who HATE the fact that there are those of us out there who do not accept the idea of God or Jesus or Allah and think it is unacceptable.

Perhaps god doesn't like a bunch of mindless sheeple, and lets in only people who think for themselves and live honest and compassionate lives because they think it's a good idea, not because they fear eternal punishment.

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.

Instead of accommodating its usage» and so its ideas and assumptions» a translation of Holy Scripture should serve the end of conversion by employing principles that recognize Christianity as its own culture with its own language and practices, raising readers up and rooting them in a rich tradition of translation, transforming them through the creative rationality, beauty, goodness, and truth reflective of the triune God who speaks his Word.

In regards to the absence of God, the idea behind it is that the individual chooses a life apart from God (essentially anybody who does not follow now).

In truth, the bishops of Malta, and other bishops around the world who go about exclaiming that it's impossible to obey God regarding sex, are setting in motion two very destructive ideas.

In light of the idea that God did not kill the firstborn sons of Egypt, why then does the Bible say that it is God who would destroy them (Exodus 11:1, 4 - 5; 12:12)?

My assumption is that a book from God would dispel some of the ignorance of his followers who had totally false ideas of the earth they lived on.

Exactly my point; if according to the Bible and Christ's words himself — that even the Son of God has no idea about the 2nd coming; I am now supposed to believe what men on earth say??!!!!! Seriously, how stupid are some people — these are the same people who claim they are religious elite!

The idea of a «devil» who is an opponent of «God» is derived from a Persian idea and it only makes sense if both the «good» entity and the «evil» entity were equally powerful.

The acronym is a bit more cumbersome, but not only is the phrase more in line with what Jesus actually wanted us to do, it is also more acceptable to the largest part of the body of Christ — those who have come to God by non-Christian paths and are uncomfortable with the idea of equating Jesus the man (the way Jesus looked physically) with God.

Though we human beings must use concepts to grasp the content of our faith, in the end God does not reveal a series of ideas: He reveals the «mystery» of Himself in the person of Christ, who is «the fullness of all revelation».

Instead, every human philosophy and religious system is filled with ideas about working our way back into the good graces of whatever deity is being worshipped, and about pleasing and appeasing the gods who are angry with us.

Whatever its origin — and I myself agree with Wellhausen and others in attributing the identification to the primitive Christian community, as their least inadequate and only possible term for one who was thus both human and divine and yet not God (which would have been unthinkable in their realm of ideas)-- whatever its origin, this first great step in the advance of Christology was of endless significance for the later development of Christian doctrine, and it was of paramount importance for the Gospel of Mark.

Atheistic materialists, who do not believe in God, understandably reject the idea of divine intervention.

My definition of «church» has definitely changed over the years, and I find myself leaning more and more toward the idea that the true bride of Christ is a group of living breathing people — not a building, not an organization, not a set of doctrines, etc. — just people who continue on the path toward faith in God.

Just because some is religious, and may believe the «God» helped them to recover, doesn't mean, that they still don't have a lot of good ideas and help to offer to someone who is not religous.

It seems that the idea of an inclusive church where people are loved and valued based only on the fact that they are a unique creation of God is threatening to those who thing they alone hold the real truth.

Even though the title «Son of God» is used in the account of the Baptism, presumably the origin of Jesus» Messianic consciousness — as many modern scholars interpret the passage — nevertheless the whole idea of his acceptance of death is formulated in terms of the heavenly Man who has power and authority upon earth, (Mark 2:10, 28) who fulfills what is written of him, who dies and rises again, and is to come in glory as the supreme advocate or judge.

On this basis, he fought tooth and nail against the moderates in the Southern Baptist Convention or any other part of the evangelical world who rejected the idea that the Bible was the Word of God in favor of the idea that the Bible became the Word of God in encounter or contained the Word of God in some way.

Anytime I questioned the idea of God damning the majority of the human population to hell, I was told that this subject was not negotiable, that God picks and chooses who He wants to save and we can't do anything about it.

Pope Benedict again reminds us: Many people today have a limited idea of the Christian faith because they identify it with a mere system of beliefs and values rather than with the truth of a God who revealed Himself in history, anxious to communicate with human beings in a tête - a-tête, in a relationship of love with them.

In this book Dominique tackles, confronts, and redirects subliminal messages of the world as she teaches women how to deflect ideas contrary to who God says they are; a masterpiece.

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.»

Conceding to believers that they can redefine the term «religion» to encompass «atheism», or whatever other ideas they wish to encompass within the word, if that suits their purposes in trying to put anyone who doesn't believe in their god or any god into the same category as themselves, grants to them the opportunity to dismiss anyone who doesn't believe in their god as holding a religious belief no more valid then their own and to classify you as just another follower of a «false religion» unlike their own, which is the «true» religion.

1) There is no evidence for magically appearing universes; 2) Aheists who have not died have no idea what is behind death's door and 3) Atheism is the opposite of science; the universe is evidence for God, there is no evidence for a conclusion of atheism.

But, if I am understanding Wright correctly, this idea has consequences for both uber - conservative Christians (who may tend to see God's presence and revelatory activity as limited the words printed in the Bible) and more liberal Christians (who may prefer to think of the words of Joshua and Jeremiah as entirely their own, and not the words of God).

Perhaps Professor Ayala is postulating the idea of God as something like a watchmaker who creates the initial laws in such a way that there is no need for His later intervention.

You can of course do so and continue self - limiting your beliefs and your idea of who or what god is.