Sentences with phrase «view god or gods»

Trust me, I can understand logically how Atheist view God or Gods as being the same as Santa Claus but in the end the statement of non-belief is just as wide of a gorge as belief.

Not exact matches

Aside from the instant, God's - eye view of the web browser, clients can generate reports that contain days, weeks or months of each vehicle's travel history.

It's also worth bearing in mind how lax tech giants can be where location privacy is concerned — whether it's Uber's infamous «god view» tool or Snapchat leaking schoolkids» location or Strava accidentally revealing the locations of military bases.

«I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self - importance — to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes (each with his General Theory) or, even better, a scientist like Einstein» George Soros

«That was an insane number driven by crazy credit and should be viewed the same as gods of ancient Greece and other fables or myths.»

Fortunately my fear is not so great that I feel I must exterminate all those that believe differently, or in a different view of God which helps them live their lives; and sadly there are many in the world who must believe so strongly they kill to salve their anxiety, panic and fear.

«Personal or religious views» do not have a place in politics, in ruling the nation, but The True God, His Word, does.

In it, they suggested that we can be divided by how we view God: as loving and involved in our day - to - day lives, loving and uninvolved, vengeful but uninvolved, or vengeful but involved.

The original credo of our nation set by our founding fathers of «E Pluribus unum» (from many, one — or from many walks of life, faith, world views, we unite as one nation) has turned into «One Nation Under [a Christian] God.»

It's unclear which came first, the «Jesus is my coach» statues or the hit song from Audio Adrenaline, but both offer a somewhat theologically questionable view of the afterlife where God is the proprietor of a large mansion with a football field - sized lawn.

But there is perhaps a use we might make of the postmodern in apologetics, for the collapse of modernity may allow believers to speak once again about God without defensiveness or self - consciousness, may allow believers both to escape political categorization as liberal or conservative and to escape the modern view that sees political categories as fundamental.

The Atheist point of view speaks ONLY to the case of your God being real or not.

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

First, it's up to God instead of our finite views of what is good and / or evil.

First I want to say that I'm not saying Atheist is a religion in a bad sence or to try and produce some sort of shame only that it falls under the definition of a religion and wondering how it would change your feelings \ view of Atheism even if everybody considered it a religous view, if it's something you believe to be true (that there is no god) what does it matter if someone labels it as your world view?

Atheist reject the idea of a god and believe their view to be true or they would be agnostic unless they choose no stance at all of a god that of which would require unknowing of what the term «god» means so it would fall under a belief and since they can't prove that a god doesn't exist then by definition it requires faith for their view, meaning it would effect their view of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe if a god was proven to be true.

if I can not rely on the bible, what should I rely on, as god come to earth and told man any bible is correct, in my view, I think gave word to more that one, and would like us to make effort to learn or try to understand each

I would seriously question whether or not someone who believes in god really can take an objective view about learning about the universe.

That is why I believe that the Christian world view that Jesus died to absolve us of our sins is the only way to rationalize imperfect people interacting with a perfect God (or going into a perfect Heaven).

As a reader trying to be charitable, I face an unattractive choice: accept that His Eminence does hold the mistaken view that mercy is essential to God; or assume that when he emphatically made the multiple important statements at key points in his book that mercy is essential to God, he didn't mean them.

I share your view that Life with Jesus is neither place or technique, but rather the «interaction» with God TODAY... leaving tomorrow where it would be.

When you read through the Bible chapter for chapter one will get a broader view or the full context about what happened, maybe where it happened why it did happen and for which purpose it happened but: «All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:..»

You asked if I would admit that my views or choice of God are wrong.

would you consider other views and admit that your views or even your choice of god is incorrect?

The problem, however, is that most Calvinists are so caught up in the logic of the system, they can not escape it, and so can not view God differently, and so can not ever truly experience His grace, love, or forgiveness as seen in Jesus Christ.

Whether this is DP1 or DP2, evil by commission or permission, clearly, both views imply that God is responsible for evil.

BUT they usually don't seem to realize or want to talk about the fact that ideas have consequences, and that believing or not believing in the ideas of Calvin has a major impact upon our daily walk and the way we view God, ourselves, and the people in our world.

So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is.

Your version of god is yours — other people hold equal views of their own gods 0 or no god at all.

Furthermore, you seem to have a very low view of people placing their faith in God, or any gGod, or any godgod.

Brown writes: «On either view [the entitative or the societal],... God's freedom lies in his primordial evaluation of possibility» (PS 2:145).

«All schools have a view of the world, be it one that includes or excludes God,» says Graham Coyle, one of the leadership team of the Christian Schools Trust — a group of 40 independent Christian schools.

Salvation by God's grace alone through faith in Christ alone as revealed in Scripture alone is unlike any other belief or world view.

The basic idea of a Non-Violent view of the atonement is that God did not want or need the death of Jesus in order to offer grace or forgiveness of sins.

Or we may view pain as something perpetrated by a far - off, disconnected God.

Like what I listen to or watch doesn't affect what I think and how I speak and how I move through my life, how I view humanity and violence, sex and God.

Rather than viewing our unhappiness as a failure or a pesky annoyance, it's actually a gift from God.

As for whether God cares if a team wins or loses, he says that «isn't a biblical view.»

It forces us to view God as either a schemer or a random chance program.

But what can be rather awkward or even scary as for «feeling» it, that happens if God unexpectedly shares with you a special view into a man's or woman's heart.

Any time someone writes something down and proclaims that it is the word of God (whether written now or 2000 years ago), the words should be viewed with some degree of caution.

This view is a little too mystical (or maybe even Gnostic) for most Christians, and yet it can not be proven or disproven from the text any more than the traditional view that God killed an animal to make clothes for Adam and Eve.

The present volume is really a collection of studies, and it might easily have grown to twice its size if other topics had been included: for example the miracle stories — I should have liked to examine Alan Richardson's new book on The Miracle - Stories of the Gospels (1942)-- or a fuller study of the so - called messianic consciousness of Jesus, the theory of interim ethics, the relation of eschatology and ethics in Jesus» teachings — see Professor Amos N. Wilder's book on the subject, Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (1939)-- the influence of the Old Testament upon the earliest interpretation of the life of Jesus — see Professor David E. Adams» new book, Man of God (1941), and Professor E. W. K. Mould's The World - View of Jesus (1941)-- or sonic of the topics treated in the new volume of essays presented to Professor William Jackson Lowstuter, New Testament Studies (1942), edited by Professor Edwin Prince Booth.

Steven thanks for your testimony I agree with your view that homosexuality is not an orientation we are not born that way but its a choice.We can choose to live by what our flesh dictates or we can live by what God reveals through his word and by his holy spirit.If we are serious about following God we chose to follow him so it does nt matter whether gay or straight our choice is to follow God with all our heart.I have never been gay but have battled and was overcome by my fleshly desires not until i turned from them and asked the holy spirit to help me have i been changed for that i will always be grateful to the Lord.So in that sense we are no different our testimonys are important and are powerful.Thank you for your witness and may the Lord continue to use you as his vessel to touch lives and hearts for him.brentnz

Did he not simply say what man should do, rather than presenting dramatic views of what God has done or will do?

To your point, if a god allows evil then it's maleveolent, when in actuality it probably would be above such petty «either or» views.

«The term can refer to theological accounts of the world as God's creation; or to philosophical reflection on the categories of space and time; or to observational and theoretical study of the structure and evolution of the physical universe; or, finally, to «world views»: unified imaginative perceptions of how the world seems and where we stand in it» (Tracy and Lash, vii).

The «rest of God» — i.e., his non-work, or play, and ours — is viewed as «a promise of the end of history.

Was for him the inbreaking of the kingdom of God the possibility of a «new being», or was it merely the occasion for a sharpening of one's conscience in view of the impending judgement?

It is not for this or that special purpose or point of view that God is unsurpassable.