Sentences with phrase «which kind of god»

It's not only able to show that there's a God behind the universe, it's able to show you which kind of God is behind the universe.

Not exact matches

I pray to whichever holy name (God, Allah, Jehovah, Krishna, Jesus, etc.) suits the ONE Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent being that ignorance is wiped away from our species and we become a closer, more loving, peaceful creature and that we realize how much time we waste and how much further we push our fellow neighbor and brother under God, regardless of creed, away debating over who's God is better and discover the error of our ways before we destroy each other... before it's too late, because The End is Nigh!!!!! LOL!!!!! Really though, isn't the world full of enough tragedy, and aren't their so many more important things that need our energy and attention like the innocent children in Pakistan dying from diseases from the flood or the homeless children in our own country, or the lack of education, which is exactly what leads to this kind of debate?

A gentler mercy followed in which pulse and breath joined in the kind of visceral, somatic prayer that felt upheld by the grace St Paul renders, «The Spirit intercedes for us in sighs too deep for words...» And, in awe, it occurred to me that my very breath proclaims the presence of the God who breathes me.

In fact, it makes Darwin into some kind of god, which he certainly was not if you ever actually studied him.

He isn't mighty enough to leave any kind of verifyable trace, and the stories in the bible that claim he did this and that are clearly false, so which god do you mean?

yo the thing is not about believing or not, is the fact that if we don't believe then we are worthless living garbage who occupy a space in the universe only to create crap and pollution, in that kind of case we would better be recycled into some industrial material for a better use than eating and living like cattle, but if there is a god we acquire a divine status and a purpose to continue to exist beyond afterlife or at least the idea of it, which would give life a sense right?

Kind of a big flaw in the bible, which proves it's lies because god the infallible could not have possibly made such a fundamental error.

It is the dawn of a new age in which time comes to be fulfilled in a kind of eternal stable movement around God.

«It is symptomatic,» she wrote, «that the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which God knows, has never lifted a finger in this country for either culture or freedom, has become a kind of collecting point for these types.»

One of Hart's most striking dismissals of the conflation of God and the gods is where he defines belief in «a personal God» or «theistic personalism» as a kind of «monopolytheism,» which «differs from polytheism... solely in that it posits the existence of only one such being.»

I now believe it does a tremendous disservice to honorable people who are faithful believers to place on them the additional burden of guilt, shame and magnified suffering that comes from the kind of doctrine that promotes (sells) prayer as a magic talisman which will somehow change God's mind, alter physical circumstance, and fix intractable problems — if only the one praying has enough faith or asks in the right way or lives a holy enough life or professes Jesus enough or waits patiently or never gives up or any of a hundred different gotchas that can be called upon to justify the lack of an affirmative answer.

The point that I was making though, which apparently God failed to help you grasp, is not that Christians don't have answers for these kinds of questions.

I watched the tension flee from their faces as I described what amounted to the least common denominator of church involvement — the kind of behavior in God's people to which I had accommodated myself years earlier.

Bible is a ensiclopedia which included God's word and words are changes to get more understanding rather than forcing people to learn Armenic kind of very remote languages.

But since there is no God or «Spirit» performing any kind of miraculous transformation on their «hearts» or personalities the degree to which they'll be the kind of good people Christians should be is determined solely by their inherent nature.

The Two Kingdoms Doctrine originates in Martin Luther's 1518 tract, «Two Kinds of Righteousness,» though before that it has resonance with Augustine's City of God, which had influenced Christian church - state relations in the West for a millennium.

Scripture says that Joshua made the sun stand still, which harmonizes just fine with the Christian tradition that God can intervene in nature to suit his purposes, but which triggers all kinds of red alarms in my brain when I try to sort it out scientifically.

For Jesus, however, man is dc - secularized by God's direct pronouncements to him, which tears him out of all security of any kind and places him at the brink of the End.

Anyone who looks on the loss of salvation for others as the condition, as it were, on which he serves Christ will in the end only be able to turn away grumbling, because that kind of reward is contrary to the loving - kindness of God.

The other kind, sins, are those willful actions in which one is knowingly rebelling against God's vision of reality; putting one's own efforts behind the break down of reality.

Over and above the «special relevance» which selected eternal objects may have in relation to particular, finite actual entities, it is necessary that there be a kind of «relevance in general,» a real togetherness of all eternal objects amongst themselves, effected by an eternal, infinite actuality: «Transcendent decision includes God's decision.

He then utilized terminology that for decades informed the basic stance of process theology on the nature of true power, though, as we shall see, that is open to challenge: God «persuades the world by an act of suffering with the kind of power which leaves its object free to respond in humility and love.»

For one of the most frequent emphases in contemporary theology, and consequently in a good deal of contemporary preaching, is that there is (what is styled) an absolute «difference in kind» between the sell - expression of God in and through any and every man, and that which was accomplished in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Indeed, the very reason why there is no reference to the judgment of God on those who commit such crimes, to the judgment of God which falls on his Son, is that nothing can expiate this kind of offense.

Or maybe you have a way of reading the Bible through the lens of Jesus Christ which maintains that God is always loving, always forgiving, and always kind?

While it is of course true that those who belong to this school are perhaps most vocal in their assertion that in our Lord alone may God be seen at work, and while it is they who denounce the concept of «general» revelation as a vain fancy of sub-Christian speculation, a considerable number of other Christian thinkers take what in effect is the same position when they make central to their teaching a kind of uniqueness in the coming and the person of Christ which effectively removes him from the context of the total sell - expressive operation of the Eternal Word.

Jesus commends those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19: 12).20 Christian celibacy is dedication to a pattern of life in which one fruitful and natural kind of experience is renounced for the sake of service to God and neighbour.

Thus we can move away from that kind of preaching in which our whole time is devoted to telling men what «rotters» they are, and come to the point where we can assure them of the wonder and glory of God's purpose for them.

Dear brothers and sisters, Blessed John Paul II reminded us that «man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God».4 The sexual intimacy of marriage, the most intimate kind of human friendship, is a pathway to sharing in God's own life.

Christ came among men with a simple ministry of teaching whose main purpose was to confirm that the kinds of ways in which God had been understood in Natural religion, and the very language used to express those insights, were broadly right.

The Kingdom of God which Jesus proclaimed, and which he may have sensed as dawning in his own ministry, was the Kingdom of this kind of God and was to be realized in a new history.

He felt that Whitehead had yielded to the natural human tendency to conceive of God in terms which offered a merely pleasant feeling about religion without demanding the kind of ultimate commitment to the creative process itself which Wieman felt was urgently needed.

Given a system in which there are no genuine causal relationships at all (except God's actions) it becomes especially curious to favor one kind of appearance of power over another.

Further «A «process theology» that is true to Whiteheadian (and Hartshornean) insights does not provide a case for affirming certain limited affirmations about the reality of God which are then to be augmented by a distinct kind of «revelational theology.»

Furthermore, the «older son» is the worst kind of «lost son» because we think we have stayed with God our Father, when in reality, we have gone into the far country of religion, which allows us to look down our self - righteous noses at everybody else who is not good enough, smart enough, or disciplined enough to truly live for God.

The souls of gods, devils, men, animals and insects were all of the same order, and so the kind of creature into which one's soul would be reborn depended on the kind of life one lived.

In the Babylonian creation myth, for example, man was created as a kind of after - thought in order to perform the menial tasks, which otherwise would have been part of the responsibilities laid as a judgment on the defeated rebel gods.

I, The Lionly Lamb do respond and write, «Faith is this «make - believe» and your «sky - god (s)» thru which the Lost might find their Way from the depths of hurt and despair, oh well intended and kind Colin.

So far all this may seem but a metaphysical rendering of the biblical doctrine, but St. Augustine wants to establish his conception of the being of God by answering many questions to which the Platonists have given their kind of answer.

This work, which has been co-written with Marian F. Sia, deals with the question: what kind of God can we continue to believe in despite the reality of so much suffering?

God gave us many «names» for His many facets so that all of us could find some kind of positive connotation to which we could cling — cloud, pillar of fire, father, shepherd, teacher, bread, friend, king, creator, provider, mother hen, water, rock, tower of refuge, master, physician, light, servant, prince, vine, and many others.

In this way the ontological argument, by drawing out the presupposition of metaphysical understanding, indicates that the choice before us is between holding that there is a God and that «reality» makes sense in some metaphysical manner, whether or not we can ever grasp what that sense is, and holding that there is no God and that any apparent metaphysical understanding of reality can only be an illusion which does not significantly correspond to the ultimate nature of things — unless this «nihilism» be regarded as a kind of metaphysical understanding instead of its blank negation.

Furthermore, despite the emphasis by such theologians as Augustine, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Reinhold Niebuhr (with whom Schlesinger enjoyed a personal association) on the need to distinguish between divine and human authority, it is a gross distortion of all of their views for Schlesinger to impute to them the kind of relativism which makes the existence of God and the reality of revelation (the basis of all western religious traditions) so utterly irrelevant for public life.

I am not concerned either with graven images or the kind of idolatry against which so many of my profession rail: the substitution of something like wealth or success for God.

Although we must guard against supposing that the Bible gives all the answers, we must not forget that the kind of God, the nature of Christ, and the way of living which the Bible sets forth is what the world needs most, today and always.

Please notice the kind of God I am talking about here is not some force in the universe as is believed in many of the eastern religions, but rather a God that is a person, and this person is different from that which he created.

The kinds of questions, I suggest, to which belief in God may provide one possible response, are both highly general and deeply personal.

• Intentional physical violence of any kind against a person made in the image of God solely for entertainment and recreation can not be justified (some pro-lobbyists and Christians cite the Just War thesis, which is at best woefully naive).

A feeling of guilt so out of proportion with what my life was, is it inscribed in the nature of every child born into this world (the moral law within us, according to Kant, attests the existence of God), or is it a deformation occurring in infancy, imposed upon the Christians of my kind, and which I have not known how to cure?

I would be glad if you could consider the substance of this lecture a kind of commentary on the first paragraph of your own «Call to Covenant Community,» which reads: «We affirm faith in Jesus Christ who proclaimed the reign of God by preaching good news to the poor, binding up the broken - hearted and calling all to repent and believe the good news.