Sentences with phrase «version of god as»

Not exact matches

Dawkins has taken the God of the Hebrew as they knew God and characterized God in their written book and made up his own version of God which just happens to be your version.

Well seeing as only 33 % of people on this planet believe in your version of a god, that means 4.6 billion people (and counting) are going to be burned in hell by your god.

Almost all the stories surrounding Jesus (if he did exist, some scholars say their is no proof of a historical Jesus) were borrowed from earlier myths and used word for word... as well as the rampant literary corruption and forgeries of Biblical Texts... It is also impossible for God to exist in the Christian version or form they created.

He (with Paul as is avowed inspiration) believed that the Jewish god and Christian God couldn't be same god and so removed OT from his version of cangod and Christian God couldn't be same god and so removed OT from his version of canGod couldn't be same god and so removed OT from his version of cangod and so removed OT from his version of canon.

Throughout Luke's version of the gospel we find a great stress on this understanding of God's judgment as an inversion of stations, with the joyful exaltation of the poor.

What was clearly translated as «the spirit of God» in the King James Version is «a strong wind from God» in the New Revised Standard Version.

Whereas the Jansenism of old despaired that anyone could really be loved by God, be good enough to receive Holy Communion, or be saved, its newer version has so little faith in the power of God to change hearts that it presumes God does not care for something so insignificant as the human heart.

Thus, metaphors and models of God are understood to be discovered as well as created, to relate to God's reality not in the sense of being literally in correspondence with it, but as versions or hypotheses of it that the community (in this case, the church) accepts as relatively adequate.16 Hence, models of God are not simply heuristic fictions; the critical realist does not accept the Feuerbachian critique that language about God is nothing but human projection.

On the very rare occasion that I refer to God as She, I do it with a lot of intentionality and with the goal of reminding myself and my readers that God is not merely some elevated, deified version of ourselves.

That true version of yourself — the one that needs the wholeness of creativity and work and service altogether — exists in a family and in a community and as part of God's love letter to the world.

Even if all parties were to agree that American republicanism is not classically liberal, or that classical liberalism really is ontologically indifferent, or that the laws of nature and of nature's God are the foundation of constitutional order and that these are the same thing as natural law — even if, in other words, all parties were to agree to some version of a pristine American founding harmonious in principle with the truth of God and the human being — returning to the first principles of the eighteenth century isn't much more realistic than a return to the first principles of the thirteenth.

Discussing at length three biological structures that ID supporters cite as evidence of «irreducible complexity» (and therefore the need, they say, for divine intervention), Collins shows how ID remains no more than a modern version of a «god of the gaps» hypothesis, which posits a «clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexity of life» and therefore completely unsatisfactory.

The global reach, extreme influence, and extreme importance of Christianity is largely due to the fact that the European races, largely Caucasoid, became the world's most dominant races as evidenced by their conquest and colonization of many parts of the world's major regions and because their religion invariably happened to be some form of Christianity, consequently, they gave the greater part of the world not only their languages, their customs, and their ideas, but also their religion including their version of what God looks like.

The emphasis on his divinity, the Canadian scholar Larry Hurtado suggests, was brought about by praying and singing hymns to Jesus, by celebration of the Lord's Supper, by confession of faith in Jesus and prophetic pronouncements of the risen Christ5 Even so there seems to have been some hesitation to speak of Jesus simply as «God» and those verses which appear to do so in English versions of the New Testament may have been mistranslated.

The concluding statement of mediation, «through Jesus Christ our Lord» (or its longer trinitarian version «through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever»), is particularly significant as a source of trinitarian piety and formation.

As for the use of god vs. God - if it is any deity then God works, if it is referring to the god of the Bible then God is just a shorter way to reference one or more of the versions of that ggod vs. God - if it is any deity then God works, if it is referring to the god of the Bible then God is just a shorter way to reference one or more of the versions of that gGod - if it is any deity then God works, if it is referring to the god of the Bible then God is just a shorter way to reference one or more of the versions of that gGod works, if it is referring to the god of the Bible then God is just a shorter way to reference one or more of the versions of that ggod of the Bible then God is just a shorter way to reference one or more of the versions of that gGod is just a shorter way to reference one or more of the versions of that godgod.

Whitehead would agree all concepts are in actuality as long as all concepts which have not yet ingressed into the world (by reversion and / or satisfaction) are held in God's conceptuality as a discrete, infinite multiplicity, some of which we prehend when we have a «new» conceptual feeling; his version of reversion.

As far as your version of god is concerned — that is all yours and you are welcome to iAs far as your version of god is concerned — that is all yours and you are welcome to ias your version of god is concerned — that is all yours and you are welcome to it.

Mormons accept the Bible as inspired (particularly the King James Version), yet they also claim that The Book of Mormon is the Word of God, along with other writings from early Mormonism such as The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants.

If the Church in Corinth had been taught by the Apostle Paul that the manner in which one is saved is to pray (verbally or nonverbally) a sincere, penitent, prayer / petition to God, such as a version of the Sinner's Prayer, why does this passage of God's Holy Word discuss baptisms for the dead and not «prayers for the dead», specifically, praying a version of the Sinner's Prayer for the dead?

The arrogance to act as if your version of Abraham's god is any different... Noah's boat, The Garden of Eden, Living in a fish for 3 days, Satan existing, The slavery, The changing morals, The contradictions, The need to kill jesus, The fact that bible scholars can not agree to what it says, and the 3 gods all rolled up in one thingy.

Indeed, faith is especially sensitive to the dangers of anthropomorphism, to the temptation to see God as some enlarged and exalted version of Superman, even though the least inadequate way of talking about God may well be in terms of man's — more specifically, of Christ's — own personal being.

In the oldest versions of Genesis that we have, the author of the first creation story used the word «Elohim» as the name for the Jewish God and in the second version the author used the name «Yahweh».

The god doesn't matter so much, but it is supremely important to them to have believers accept a certain version of «scripture» as the words of that god.

@ Mark — well, considering that the US was founded as a secular nation, and our consti.tution guarantees we can tell any version of any god to take a flying leap, and that same doc.ument says you caanot impose any type of religious test for any office, and we have treaties with other nations specifically stating we are not a christian nation --

For example, the Yahwist version seems to be present in the story where Moses is elected, chosen, and authenticated by God himself, where Moses is appointed by God as the intercessor on behalf of the people.

Otherwise we come across as religious zealots, convinced of our particular version of God, and determined to force him upon anyone who will listen.

Most, perhaps all, cultures and religious traditions have some version of the problem of evil, but as C. S. Lewis wrote in The Problem of Pain, this problem becomes scandalous in Christianity, which traditionally has held that the universe is governed by a loving and omnipotent God.

Finally, in Science, Secularization and God Kenneth Cauthen seeks to show how a version of process theology (drawn from Brightman, Tillich and Teilhard, as well as Whitehead) can positively relate the creative and redemptive God of Christianity to «currents springing from science and secularization.

In my book Jewish Renewal: A Path to Healing and Transformation, I point out that in the original Hebrew version the word for «the Lord» that calls Abraham to sacrifice his son is very different than the word for the angel of God (YHVH) who tells Abraham to NOT GO THROUGH WITH IT, and that the reason we Jews celebrate Abraham as the father of our people is NOT because of his faith in being willing to carry out this violent and bloody act, but rather because he was able to hear the voice of God as a voice that allowed him (and through him all subsequent Jewish and Muslim believers) to NOT FOLLOW THE VOICE OF CRUETLY AS SOMEHOW THE VOICE OF GOof God (YHVH) who tells Abraham to NOT GO THROUGH WITH IT, and that the reason we Jews celebrate Abraham as the father of our people is NOT because of his faith in being willing to carry out this violent and bloody act, but rather because he was able to hear the voice of God as a voice that allowed him (and through him all subsequent Jewish and Muslim believers) to NOT FOLLOW THE VOICE OF CRUETLY AS SOMEHOW THE VOICE OF GOas the father of our people is NOT because of his faith in being willing to carry out this violent and bloody act, but rather because he was able to hear the voice of God as a voice that allowed him (and through him all subsequent Jewish and Muslim believers) to NOT FOLLOW THE VOICE OF CRUETLY AS SOMEHOW THE VOICE OF GOof our people is NOT because of his faith in being willing to carry out this violent and bloody act, but rather because he was able to hear the voice of God as a voice that allowed him (and through him all subsequent Jewish and Muslim believers) to NOT FOLLOW THE VOICE OF CRUETLY AS SOMEHOW THE VOICE OF GOof his faith in being willing to carry out this violent and bloody act, but rather because he was able to hear the voice of God as a voice that allowed him (and through him all subsequent Jewish and Muslim believers) to NOT FOLLOW THE VOICE OF CRUETLY AS SOMEHOW THE VOICE OF GOof God as a voice that allowed him (and through him all subsequent Jewish and Muslim believers) to NOT FOLLOW THE VOICE OF CRUETLY AS SOMEHOW THE VOICE OF GOas a voice that allowed him (and through him all subsequent Jewish and Muslim believers) to NOT FOLLOW THE VOICE OF CRUETLY AS SOMEHOW THE VOICE OF GOOF CRUETLY AS SOMEHOW THE VOICE OF GOAS SOMEHOW THE VOICE OF GOOF GOD.

Therefore, one version of this problem concerns the question as to what God does over and above what is accomplished by these lesser temporal processes.

In this they really do treat God like an Americanized Santa Claus — and it's no wonder that they deride this «version» of God and rightfully dismiss him as unreal.

However, I am more spiritual than religions, as Spirituality is a relationship with a higher power, whereas Religion is a man made construct to tell others how to worship a specific version of God

She does not tell us whether she has come to identify fully with this version of Christianity, but she makes clear that in this book she writes as a social scientist who in this role can not make statements about the ultimate validity of the Evangelical experience of God.

This version does so, and makes a few other changes, while keeping the imagery of God as ruling sovereign.»

I think that the religious are so enamored with their version of truth that introduces them as the mediator between God and man so that no one is save except they come through my theological understanding and all others are damned.

The notion of God as the principle of the limitation of possibility was the first version that Whitehead developed as to the nature of God, but this concept was considerably modified over the course of the next three or four years.

If other men on the planet already knew «god» before being exposed to any version of Judaic religion (as if that were the one and only true religion), then why bother spreading the message?

CNN: Seeking the truth about Jesus Jay Parini, author of the forthcoming book Jesus: The Human Face of God, writes that «there are probably as many visions of Jesus, and versions, as there are Christians,» which explains why «all attempts to classify Jesus seem hopelessly inadequate.»

The Bible may be word for word from the mouth of God, every word exactly as God said it (but in which translation, and even in which version of the «original», since we lack autographs?)

If Rand did not believe in God personally, then as a Russian immigrant she certainly understood the power of the gospel's messages and inundated the work with secular versions of the gospel's teachings.

An alternative formulation is that the world as a unity is explainable only by the divinely inclusive love that binds the many into a single cosmic structure; and, therefore, the world of secular experience is nonsense if God does not exist.79 Similarly, one neoclassical version of the traditional teleological argument would be that the fact that the world has any order at all is only to be explained by an eternal divine Orderer, because apart from God it is impossible to understand why chaos and anarchy are not unlimited and supreme.80

As an Atheist, I don't feel morally superior to anybody, that's for the self - righteous religious people — I simply don't think a belief in something as fantastical and unprovable as any version of god is necessary in order for a person to be a good persoAs an Atheist, I don't feel morally superior to anybody, that's for the self - righteous religious people — I simply don't think a belief in something as fantastical and unprovable as any version of god is necessary in order for a person to be a good persoas fantastical and unprovable as any version of god is necessary in order for a person to be a good persoas any version of god is necessary in order for a person to be a good person.

Also, for the record, the OP's handle notwithstanding, when people make modern versions of this argument, they don't cite belief vs disbelief in heaven and hell per se, but belief and disbelief in god as the critical matter, heaven and hell being the pay offs.

Lilu, this is as opposed to all the Christians that tell me i'm going to burn in hell for all eternity not because of anything i do, but merely because i do not accept on faith alone that their unsupported version of god is right and all the other unsupported versions of god are wrong?

Though not his latest book, How to Know God is his most explicitly theological work and serves as an exemplar of how a version of Vedanta Hinduism (introduced to the West by such exponents as Swami Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda) has been made popular and accessible.

Barth thus gives his own version of St. Augustine's bold suggestion that in the being of man there is a reflection of the holy Trinity, God's being as Creator, the Father; the knowledge of his being, the Logos; and the rejoicing in that knowledge, the Spirit.

After all, he seems not to come from a people that treats the writings of the prophet Hosea with due reverence, but he nonetheless has chosen this moment to perform a symbolic version of the actions of God toward Israel as depicted in the sixth chapter.

Whether Luke 17:21 is rendered as in the King James Version (cited hereafter KJV), «The kingdom of God is within you,» or more accurately as `' in the midst of you,» the time - setting is clearly in the present.

Practically every version of Trinitarian Christianity, from fundamentalist to liberal, sees Jesus as the God of the Old Testament.