Sentences with phrase «other attributes god»

There are other attributes God as defined in the bible and these definitions clarify to us humans why we can not be God.

Not exact matches

If you have an experience that you attribute to a god, how did you exclude all other possibilities?

The leaders claim to speak for «God» when all they do is rehash archaic MAN MADE dogma attributed to a «God» who more closely resembles man's feeble mind and violent nature rather than the other way around.

As for the one god being more valid than any of the other thousands, that things you attribute to him (technically to Jesus), still haven't been proven in anything outside of the bible, which no one of a scientific mind can accept as convincing proof.

Thus, to theists, there is no scenario under which the existence of things can be attributed to something other than a god.

Just like how people pick their God â $ «they focus on certain attributes as key and others as minor â $ «it all depends on what one wants to focus on.

If he now doesn't want to make the claim that mercy is essential to God, I don't see how he can make the argument that mercy should be the key to understanding the other attributes.

Notice that every miracle attributed to Jesus was claimed to have been accomplished by some other supposed god before him.

I think this is what causes me uneasiness with those who attribute belief in God to the fear of divine retri bution, brainwashing, indoctrination at an early age or any other contrived reason.

This nontemporality and consequent everlastingness is analogous to the fact that, at the periods of cosmic absorption according to Ramanuja, the attributes which constitute God are not assimilated like the others.

In other words, he must affirm both the ultimate unity of brahman and the plurality of the attributes which define God and the soul Neither unity nor plurality may be allowed ultimacy at the expense of the other.

In about half of these the hardening is attributed to Pharaoh himself; in the others to God.

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.

I, on the other hand, presuppose that God can not be evil; that goodness and being belong inextricably together or else there is no ground for basic trust... Even Calvinist Paul Helm, a leading evangelical Calvinist thinker, agrees (as I show in my book) that «goodness» attributed to God can not be totally different from every understanding of goodness (and love) we know of.»

Hence, we must attribute to God not only the conceptual ordering of the eternal objects by virtue of which he lures the occasions of the world toward order and value; we must attribute to him as to all other actual entities physical feelings as well.

If so, the variety of gods in other religions are explained to be the attributes of the greater God, kind of like Son, Holy Ghost, Virgin, saints, angels etc..

If God is an actual entity, then it is appropriate to attribute to him the structures characteristic of other actual entities.

And its proper place is as the fundamental attribute of God, while all other divine attributes are in some way secondary.

The Fourth Gospel attributes to Jesus the words, «Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God»; (John 3:5) the Epistle to Titus says the same thing in other language — «He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit»; (Titus 3:5) and in the Shepherd of Hermas, which in some of the earliest canons was included in the New Testament, the baptismal water is called «the seal of the Son of God» into which they descend «dead,» and out of which they come «alive.»

We must not attribute to God our limitations, but we must guard equally against supposing he is of some other — and if impersonal, some lower — order of being.

What is actually true is many people have had experiences they could not explain and attributed it to god without eliminating all other possibilities because they WANTED it to be god.

In other words, if there is no true will, we would have no way to explain the origin of evil unless it were attributed to God.

Furthermore, I would a-ssert that the notion of «doing unto others...» is self - evident, and needed not be attributed to some alleged «son of god» to sp - ice up the story with useless metaphysical tripe.

But the tendency to maintain a distinction between Jesus and God, attributing to them different ontological status, is strongest in the first and fourth, and the tendency to identify God with the revelation of God is strongest in the second and third, which in other ways seem to be most strongly opposed to one another.

Though innocent of all violence attributed to Him, God allowed the violence committed by others to be laid upon His head so that He might take the blame and thereby rescue and deliver mankind from most of the self - destructive consequences of their sin, and reveal Himself to mankind as a loving Father who takes our sin upon Himself for our deliverance from the consequences of sin and for the sake of our relationship with Him.

In other words, the cognitive superiority of an uncompromised process theism could be maintained as long as there is no philosophically tenable via media model, such that God creates ex nihilo, but possesses the attributes of a dipolar, temporalistic God once there is something finite to be in relation to.

As Neville recognizes, his own view that God is «beyond the metaphysical categories illustrated in the temporal process» means that he «can not except by devious analogy be called individual, actual, knowledgeable, or a variety of other things Hartshorne attributes to God» (p. 61).

Leibniz almost got the point in the very time of the first microscopic perceptions of micro-organisms, but he could not free himself from the mechanical model and so, though he held that every individual at least feels, he did not attribute even the least creativity, originative power, to any individual other than God, who thus had no proper place in the system.

8:1); «God heard» (Bemidbar 11:1); Then God awoke as one that had slept» (Tehillim 78:65); and there are many other similar attributes to Him of human actions.

You write correctly, «any conception of God, including of the «will» or other attributes of God, is limited and thus inaccurate.»

It would seem that some would attribution certain actions of Yahweh to Satan while others would attribute them to God.

The Ash» arites — followers of al - Ashari (873 - 935) a foremost Muslim theologian — held that the attributes «were not God and not other than God.»

The other attributes that Professor Dawkins mentions in his list are all consequences of the divine intelligence; though we can add that God's readiness to forgive sins is not something that can be deduced with certainty by philosophy alone.

However, in supporting his position he emphasizes only rationality's contribution to God, ignoring other important contributors, particularly his own vision of love as the highest of values, and our most God - like attribute.

Other elements of Hartshorne's cumulative argument for God's existence provide reasons for thinking that the cosmic ordering power has other attributes traditionally ascribed to God (see Viney, 1Other elements of Hartshorne's cumulative argument for God's existence provide reasons for thinking that the cosmic ordering power has other attributes traditionally ascribed to God (see Viney, 1other attributes traditionally ascribed to God (see Viney, 1985).

The elements that make up this absolute Good are what we term ideas (attributes, qualities) of God, such as life, love, substance, power, wisdom... joy, strength, plenty, and every other good thing.»

if humans had just fell in line with religious teachings and never asked questions other than «god did it»... then people would still be dying in child birth, the common cold, small poxs etc etc etc. i find that we survived a s a species to become the alpha predator of this planet and the achievements we have made since then to be amazing; attributing everything humans have achieved to a god just cheapens the value of our achievements as a species.

Because Whitehead is thinking of God as the primordial actual entity, he attributes the same threefold character to God which other actual entities have.

For Whitehead is prepared to attribute to the God - head the sort of stuff of which «actual entities» are made, and to say of this God stuff that it is distinct from other natural stuff, though not so different as to remove God from the natural order.

You bemoan the «atrocities» attributed to Allah, but you do n`t even flinch when hearing about how God / Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in «Exodus» and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in «Joshua» including women, children, and trees or the 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf (or the dozen or so other slaughters condoned by the bible).

Did Israel and the Jews who wrote many of the things we read in the Bible get their messages from God, or as did their contemporaries, did they attribute good crops, natural disasters and many other things both good and bad to God or the gods?

Such a principle will help us on this occasion to decide, among the various attributes set down in the scholastic inventory of God's perfections, whether some be not far less significant than others.

By the way, whether this gifted man (or any of the others you cited) believed or not is quite beside the point of whether there is a god, but I get frustrated when people wrongly attribute a belief in [always their] god to him.

You bemoan the «atrocities» attributed to Allah, but you do n`t even flinch when hearing about how God / Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in «Exodus» and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in «Joshua» including women, children, and trees or the 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf (or the dozen or so other slaughters condoned by the Bible).

Some people appeal to God's unconditional love as if that trumps or invalidates His other attributes, most notably His wrath.

In any given instant, God's attributes must be categoric Instances that incomparably surpass those of all other beings; but God will perpetually surpass himself in every future instant as his successive states actualize more and more possibilities.

As soon as God is claimed to be a causal agent and possess qualities / attributes we see only in humans and other tangible entities, the definition becomes internally contradictory.

Among other attributes used to describe God is Omniscience as well.

I assume, therefore, that the explanation of the derivation from God of the initial aim and of novelty, need not attribute to God's causal efficacy for temporal occasions a function radically different from that exemplified in the interrelationships of other actual entities.

So I do believe in a God beyond the metaphysical categories illustrated in temporal process; but such a God is indeed beyond the categories and can not except by devious analogy be called individual, actual, knowledgeable, or a variety of other things Hartshorne attributes to his God.