Sentences with phrase «not about the creation»

We will see that Genesis 1:1 is not about creation vs. evolution at all.

Life is not about the creation of a single perfect being.

Not exact matches

Even when well - known people post about her creations on social media, she said whatever followers she gains and exposure she gets don't cover the cost of her time.

Of course, I can't exactly write about new fast - food creations without actually trying them, so on the wife's advice I went back and ordered the Sante Fe wrap.

But often you're splitting hairs over a few dollars and cents and not talking about true value creation.

For instance, as a blogger, I owe it as a duty to show my kids not just the basics of blogging, but equally talk to them about content creation, web design, and even show them some of the SEO tools I use to stay ahead of my competition.

When I decided to write a post about Lee I made a conscious choice not to spend much time writing about her creation of the term «unicorn.»

I probably don't have much to say about it in terms of the territory and the budget around helping to facilitate the creation of clusters and superclusters.

He certainly hasn't been in Parliament answering questions about the economy and how the government intends to act to strengthen economic growth and job creation.

Mollick, an Assistant Professor of Management at Wharton where he focuses on entrepreneurship and crowdfunding, believes crowdfunding is not just about the money but the creation of a community.

But nobody has been more effective or compelling in bringing about the creation of the United Conservative Party than its chief rallier: NDP Premier Rachel Notley, whose interloping, democratically endorsed mandate can not, in the eyes of many Albertans, end soon enough.

Content marketing isn't just about writing, it's about consistent content creation: case studies, white papers, presentations, infographics, videos, podcasts, webinars, eBooks... the list goes on.

Thomas thinks that it is the discipline of metaphysics that asks questions about the ultimate cause of existence of things, and, as he says, «not only does faith hold that there is creation, reason also demonstrates it» (In II Sent., dist.

The Bible account of creation does not conflict with scientific conclusions about the age of the universe.

Since Uran.us and Ga.ia both are real too, when I look around I see Gaia, Zeus's grandmother, I don't know about this god you speak of, I mean I get to TOUCH god whenever I feel the ground, you just touch his «creation», you poor soul, not knowing what god actually feels like.

It is a reality that we must confess, but it is a reality about God and his relationship to creation, not the means by which he created the creation.

There are more stories out of the bible that have been proven impossible and or wrong by science than have been shown to have any credibility... Of course I'm talking about actual science... not that christian science and creation «science»... which use scientific sounding things and jump to ridiculous unjustifyable conlusions, or that create incorrect premises and then make up answers to suit the questions.

IF you were to look at creation it - self and how complex and in order things are surely after a few days of thinking about it you would have to say there must have be a creator in all of this stuff going on??? there is to much out there to say it all happened by chance or accicedent... you do nt have to go past the moon or the nearest planet to see what im talking aobut i will pray that God will reveal him self to you and you too can see what im talking aobut... you can emial me if you like randytherealtor7 at yahoo com

I just wish other conservatives would do the same and not just give us lip - service about «job creation» and «healthcare freedom».

Thus Jews and Christians, both informed by what they have learned about the integrity of creation from the Hebrew Bible, need not try to invent ecological ethics de novo.

On the other hand, the younger set takes their sexual cues from the resurrection (preferring not to think about the so - called «order of creation») while using Genesis to highlight their culture - making activities and their environmental concerns.

Many years ago I was added to the listserve for a group of Evangelical pastors, though not a pastor myself, and one day one of them asked the group about using stories or quotes in sermons without telling their people they were using them, that is, presenting the stories as their own stories and the quotes as their own creation.

In the other passage, St. Thomas does address divine mercy and justice, but he is talking about God's work towards creation, so those passages aren't directly relevant to the question of the divine essence considered in itself.

What is «different» about the contract God made with humanity, and through us with * his * creation is that it is kept in force by * his * Unconditional Love and faithfulness, not on human performance or fidelity.

But then, if we do not agree on God, the creation, and the Bible, there are few points about which we can agree.

Realism and anti-realism contain fundamentally different understandings about what is knowable and what is not, what can be change and what can not, and mankind's place in creation.

Can say that I believe in every thing that you disbelief of when it comes to the Creator and the Creation of universe, life and guidance, God has given me hearing, seeing, thinking and heart feelings to see and experience signs and small miracles to have faith in him and continue with good deeds I was told of in his Holy Book although am not perfect at that but nothing to lose but contrary to that there are more to gain in life and life after... For those disbelievers they lose their senses by being locked and blocked from such experiences... It is all about souls as verses speak for them selves;

The nicest thing I can say to you is that you are completely and totally ignorant about what atheism is, not to mention, ignorant about what science says about our creation.

Unlike Superman whose creation can actually be traced back to a couple of young Jewish men in 1938 for the purpose of providing a sellable fictional story line to Detective Comics, there is no such evidence in regards to religious belief; especially since in this case being that this is about a God who does not want to be made known but who would rather have us develop our faith.

I even have a problem with «Literature as Literature»: Reading King Lear, I don't think about Shakespeare; reading Paradise Lost, my eye is not on Milton, but the creation.

With all the emphasis on creation or evolution coming out of the first few chapters of Genesis, we often miss some of the most important ideas about our humanity and how God created us (not physically, but spiritually and psychologically).

If the millions of Americans who lost their jobs in 2007 - 2009 lost it because of their laziness then surely republicans can not complain about job creation, and Obama / Congress don't need to create any jobs whatsoever.

In the case of the creation story you must read it as if you were a hunter / gatherer (caveman) who did not have a concept of time (no watches, no calendars, most likely someone who didn't keep track of how old he was — think about indigenous peoples who had no contact with western civilization until the 20th century).

Paul is not entering into the debate about whether creation is out of nothing rather than out of some primordial mass.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

But somehow the humourless church soon thought that Jesus was teaching about not getting genitals cut of but commending the voluntary choice to reject the creation commands by staying unmarried with genitals intact.

If the ascension is understood as not about a direction but instead about the place Jesus occupies in creation and in our hearts, it becomes a powerful counter to the economic and political powers of our day.

So we don't talk much about being new creations.

Rabbi Neuberger asserted that «it's really important that one accepts that... new scientific research has taught us... that the human embryo is not as unique as we thought before... We do have to think differently about the «unique quality of human embryos» in the way that Peter Saunders is saying... The miracle of creation... may have to be explained somewhat differently... Our human brains are given to us by God... to better the life of other human beings... and if this technology can do it..., and I don't believe that anybody is going to research beyond fourteen days, then so be it, lets do it.»

If the ascension is not about a direction but about the place Jesus occupies in creation and in our hearts, it becomes a powerful counter to the powers of these days.

It was almost like it was not a coincidence that the service started with a video about creation and the «literal 6 day creation» and how sin entered into the world... you know the rest.

It's not about God manipulating creation like a puppeteer, but of ruling over creation, like a wise King.

EricG, Eric didn't realize my question on creation would get you talking about ice cream at Dairy Queen.

The assumption was on the part of the religious that what we do not understand must be the work of a god — except that over the last few centuries we understand more about creation — big bang, evolution, etc. which shows those creation stories to be incorrect.

Yet even if they tried, the evangelists could not put aside their knowledge of the crucifixion and resurrection and feel what the people of Galilee felt, any more than someone writing today about Jewish history in the 1930s can put aside their knowledge of the horror of the Holocaust or of the creation of the state of Israel.

We see this in sports, where Roger Bannister's comment about his world - record race (he was the first to run the mile in under four minutes) has often been repeated by other runners: «The world seemed to stand still, or did not exist... «17 And certainly this can be true of the play world of art, which, according to Gerardus Van der Leeuw, is a new «creation, a second world, with its own power.

(One young woman from a mainline church put it this way: «I wasn't learning anything about justice or creation care in church that I wasn't learning in school.

Eventually the Church moved to the forefront of abolition because we understood this truth: Just because the Bible contained instructions about how to treat slaves in a context and culture where it was acceptable to hold slaves does not mean slavery is a godly practice or part of God's intended purpose for creation.)

Slightly improved doctrines about the oppressed, about women, about the body, about community, or about the whole of creation will not change the church much.

How about this: god is a pretend creation you've made up to explain things you don't understand.