Sentences with phrase «make god a character»

Not exact matches

Rather than looking at corporate work as the evil scourge of the earth (though you certainly want to make sure your personal values align with an organization's corporate values), riding the elevator to the 11th floor every day may be exactly where God needs you to develop your spiritual character, your gifts and to reach those who are broken, empty and living without knowing their Savior.

Instead of trying to make Him out to be something that our / your little minds can only conceive, try reading and listening to what the God of the Bible says about His character.

Yes, in the case of character flaws, it's much easier for a Christian to claim that god made them that way to serve a particular purpose in the body of Christ or that god will forgive their sins.

These books are man - made, and the god characters in these books are man - made.

and to those who say that believing in God at worst, costs nothing, well, thanks, but I'm not wasting my entire life ignoring the existing planet in exchange for telling a make believe character how great he is.

«there is one error which can not be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork»

I believe they would see the former as corrupted with certain gnostic beliefs that slander God's character and make Him out to be a liar, while the latter would be seen as so corrupted by paganism that it basically boils down to rude idolatry sprinkled with certain Christian beliefs.

Because he knows that if he can discredit God by throwing mud at his character, and make men take in his lies, he has separated them from only hope they have.

Just as important, we make claims about what the world essentially is and about the character of the God who created it.

Newt's feet are made of clay too, and character is important, but his past and Christian - born - again life is between him and God, not us.

We are made in Gods image and thus we need to reflect this image and His character outwards into the lives of people... at their edge of life and personal hell reflecting Gods grace, mercy, justice, compassion and forgiveness.

Home is where God is leading us, and we, like one of Christopher Fry's characters, are commissioned to «make wherever we are as much like home as possible.»

It is unguarded to make a general principle of God's character on the basis of the treatment of the Canaanites in the Old Testament.

It is the problematic character of this step which makes the ontological argument unsatisfactory as a proof of God's existence although in the case of Hartshorne himself it was perhaps taken, implicitly if not explicitly, when, as he tells us, «about the age of seventeen, after reading Emerson's Essays, I made up my mind (doubtless with a somewhat hazy notion of what I was doing) to trust reason to the end» (LP viii).

Given their enormous political power over the rest of us, we need politicians who have the God - fearing character and integrity to do the right thing every time a decision must be made, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the sacrifices he (and we) will have to make.This is God's world, not ours.

In the paradoxical formula of Archbishop Nathan Söderblom's Gifford Lectures of 1931, «the uniqueness of Christ as the historical revealer, as the Word made flesh, and the mystery of Calvary,» which are an «essentially unique character of Christianity,» compel the affirmation that «God reveals himself in history; outside the Church as well as in it» (The Living God [Beacon, 1962], pp. 349, 379).

Correction: what two consenting adults do in private is between them, god, the easter bunny, santa claus, the tooth fairy, big foot, ra, shiva, allah, the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, thor, zeus, apollo, hercules, hermes, athena and about 1800 other made up characters.

All came right down the Silk Road, to the keepers of the bible, who realized that the philosophies that were coming to them were eroding their control, so they elevated this Jesus character to a man - god (since we have to keep people believing in OUR god), make up a bunch of stories, where Jesus says these things, which will make it more pallatable when we propogate it to the people, and voila... the new testament... a repackaged ready for propogandizing, religion... based on previous cultiures stories, and intermixed with eastern philosophy.

Christians, on the other hand, believe that God desires to reveal himself, and would contend that the fact that humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), even if fallen, provides some basis for some understanding of his character.

They are children of God, made in his image, destined for his character.

It also prevents us from making real our relationship to God, for the meeting with God takes place in the «lived concrete,» and lived concreteness exists only in so far as the moment retains its true dialogical character of presentness and uniqueness.

A false security prevents us from making real our relationship to God, for the meeting with God takes place in the «lived concrete,» and lived concreteness exists only in so far as the moment retains its true dialogical character of presentness and uniqueness.

In a study of his earlier pictures, Kolker notes that «Scorsese is interested in the psychological manifestations of individuals who are representative either of a class or of a certain ideological grouping; he is concerned with their relationship to each other or to an antagonistic environment... [and finally] there is no triumph for his characters» (A Cinema of Loneliness [Oxford University Press, 19881, p. 162) The Jesus of the Last Temptation fits this pattern (as do Travis Bickel in Taxi Driver, Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull and Paul Hackett in After Hours) By eschewing any reference to a resurrection — and, in an interesting theological note, allowing Paul to suggest that his preaching of the risen Christ is more important than the Jesus of history — Scorsese presents the crucifixion as the final willful act of a man driven by a God who makes strange demands on his followers.

Harvey made Dowd different according to Dowd's own propensities, but Jesus makes each of us different according to God's propensities and His character.

Though the chapter on how God values women was worthwhile reading, the damage done by every other chapter in the book to the Gospel, to the character of God, and to the witness of the church in this world makes this book not worth reading.

It seems that the Church tends to fall into two extremes when we consider how we might fulfill this call: On one hand, we attempt to make the Gospel message palatable to our culture, and more often than we would like to admit, it has resulted in a weak message that tells half - truths about God's character.

Because Jesus is the Word made Flesh, the exact imprint and character of God... formerly hidden, now made known.

@Twin — A good deal of the bible would make more sense if the reader viewed the character of god as some sort of anti-human bigot.

Luke had been at pains to make clear that the risen Jesus was no otherworldly spirit but a physical form with flesh and bones, 42 who consequently presented his disciples with infallible proofs.41 The risen Christ came to be regarded as having conducted a fresh ministry with his disciples, and in these forty days he «taught them about the kingdom of God».41 But since the experience of the risen Christ was not of this character at the end of the century when Acts was written, it had to be made clear that this kind of experience was brought to an end by a new event, the Ascension.

MacLeish's contribution, other than bringing the story into the 20th century, making a great contribution to the tiny, tiny pool of American poetic drama, and winning the 1959 Pulitzer with it, is quite a bit of additional commentary by his God and Satan characters, a pair of washed - up actors who observe the Job story being played on a stage, and occasionally take part in it.

This mysterious pre-existent personification is nothing but an aspect of the character of God; by virtue of his being this sort of a God he made the world.

The principal points Paul made in that address are (1) to recall to their minds the character and quality of his ministry to them; (2) to remind them of the trouble the Jews gave him and the anxiety and suffering he underwent in their behalf; (3) to state that he preached repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the essence of the gospel; (4) to testify that he went now to Jerusalem not knowing what would happen to him there except that he knew by the Holy Spirit that afflictions awaited him; (5) to assure them that nothing concerned him, not even the loss of life itself, so long as he could testify to the grace of God in Jesus Christ; (6) to say that he had no regrets about his ministry to the people in Ephesus, for he was clean of the blood of all the people there, for he preached the full gospel to all of them; and (7) to admonish them to be diligent in their oversight of the Ephesian church and to feed the church of God there, which Christ purchased with his own blood.

Those who are wise in their own minds (whether they are «educated» or not makes no difference) often depend upon their own wisdom; whereas those who are know they have much to learn (that is, they are «babes») are willing to accept what Jesus reveals to them about the character and nature of God.

It is the way life makes way for more life.9 Death establishes a common fate for every living thing, and thus gives a decisive character to our dependence upon God and our unity with all His creatures.

Their churchmanship is part of their respectability — not hypocritically professed, they believe it after a fashion — but the profound experiences of the soul which transform character, sustain strength and courage, dedicate life, and make God intimately real, they have not known at firsthand.

The formal designation can be made easily enough: When we refer to «Jesus Christ,» we are referring to the historical reality about which we were thinking in the preceding chapter — the reality from which the Christian community took its beginning and by which the continuing character of that community has been determined, the reality in and through which the revelation of God, known within the church, took place.

By his trust in the Transcendent Source of being, by his loyalty to all to whom he trusts the Father to be loyal, by his faithfulness to God he makes himself known to us as one who has the character of a Son.

But he is not made known as Son of God in reality until he is established in power, until it becomes clear that such a character of trust and loyalty is indeed in complete harmony with the nature of things.

(Thiemann, 94) It is only in relation to what we can discern from our faith story about the character of God that we can make any defense of revelation in the face of critical objections to its validity.

But there is certainly nothing inherent in the standard free - will perspective that requires the FWT to hold that God's primary purpose for creating free creatures was to make it possible for God to «enjoy the value of knowing that those of us who developed moral character and spiritual virtue... did so freely» (ER 18).

Especially the theme of God's word and promise, but also those of exodus, redemption, covenant, justice, wisdom, of the Logos made flesh, of the Spirit poured out on the face of creation, of the compassion, paternity and maternity of God, and especially the Trinitarian character of God — all of the indispensable elements in a Christian theology — communicate their depth only when they are united with the theme of divine self - abnegation which, at least to Christian faith, comes to its most explicit expression in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus?

Here we often make the connection that both masculine and feminine aspects of God's creation must therefore be reflections of God's character, a point that isechoed throughout Scripture as God is poetically depicted as both Father and Mother, seamstress and warrior, compassionate (from the feminine rehem, for womb) and just.

Traditionally this point has been made by reference to the «analogical» or «symbolical» character of «God - talk.»

I think you've made an important distinction about reading the Old Testament not only in light of the New Testament, but in light of Jesus and what his life and sacrifice tell us about the character of God.

since none exists, atheists lack the moral authority and the common sense to make credible arguments about god's existence and his character

Furthermore, there is a hunger in the heart for moral guidance, a hunger that is born of the Spirit and that is an essential part of our human character as creatures made in the image of God.

As the «one relational complex in which all potential objectifications find their niche,» (Process 66) for Whitehead the extensive continuum certainly corresponds to the breadth of vision of the divine primordial nature, even as the space - time continuum as a partial realization of the extensive continuum corresponds to the more limited character of the divine consequent nature here and now Thus, even though Whitehead does not make explicit use of field - oriented imagery to describe the God - world relationship, the concepts are at hand to sustain that line of thought.8

In the light of that with critical engagement, it would be to onus on the character to prove his point about «God» not changing, to provide evidence and make therefore a reasoned proposition for what he claims to be true so it can be considered.

The reality of past events is partially preserved as newly synthesized elements in later events but fully and infallibly in the never - failing memory of God.51 Hartshorne explains further that a denial of the full reality of the past would entail the conclusion that no true statements could be made about the determinate character of past events («Lincoln was assassinated»), whereas acceptance of his doctrine of the nonactuality of the future entails the falsity of all statements that ascribe completely determinate character to future events.52 «Maybe» is the only correct mode of reference to the future.

England's most prestigious literary award» the Booker Prize» had been awarded to a work that made the following assertion on its inside cover: «This is a novel of such rare and wondrous storytelling that it may, as one character claims, make you believe in God.