Sentences with phrase «without real gods»

Not exact matches

= > again we have never been without god or God real or imagingod or God real or imaginGod real or imagined.

If you people just want to worship your imaginary god that's fine, I would just like to live in the real world without being told I'm going to he'll for it.

You said, «again we have never been without god or God real or imagined.&raqgod or God real or imagined.&raqGod real or imagined.»

Good for Kerry that she keeps it real in the most emotional, traumatic part of someones life without pushing and selling god, Chris, religion.

@one one it is explainable, only that the REAL problem comes when you demand physical evidence which is practically impossible, like i said, God is not going to come and take us by the hand so we make our choice, we have to make our choice on our own without being able to physically watch Him

Northern Europe does it just fine without the God card, of course, they have a real democracies, something we might have one day...

However, if you, or anyone else can prove that god is real without a single mention of the bible I will change my mind.

If that is offensive, intolerant, or unacceptable to anyone, then they can choose to join a social club, support group, or any other number of options, but the true church will stand her ground and preach the infallible Word of God without fear or favor in love for lost humanity and a with a real hatred of sin that destroys and condemns.

He would be fully man without sin, so a «real» second Adam, created by God, maybe before time, but ain't we all created before time?

So you believe at least TWO things by faith (i.e. without evidence): 1) God exists 2) the God of the Holy Bible is real, and all the rest are second - rate.

Instead, in the very human act of puffy eyes and hiccuping, of confessions and confrontations, I found God all over again and I was restored to a very real and very holy friendship, to a life without the protective armour.

That concept is not easy to teach or warm one's hands over without considerable effort, but it is not impossible to convey even to young children the sense that the real meaning of Christmas lies precisely in the combination of magical ceremonies and the grown - up message that in the very midst of our human selfishness, the waylaying love of God has broken through to us unconditionally.

Maybe, maybe not, but they CERTAINLY wouldn't insist with the same stubbornness as they do now, without any real evidence of God's existence.

Of course, to the man without faith this appears to be both a piece of evasion of real issues in that it shelves difficult problems, and a piece of wishful thinking in that it believes in the ultimate goodness of God in some nebulous hereafter, even though the daily evidence of life denies such goodness and love.

Quite the contrary, its purpose is to argue that the fundamental Thomist vision of finite existence as pointing to its self - sufficient cause is fully compatible with a doctrine of God that can embody the real strengths of the Thomist position without entailing its religiously and logically unsatisfactory conclusions.

When we love our neighbour independent from his faith (or colour, nationality, social status, etc.), we preach the gospel without words and most effective, whereby it is God's work to cause the real faith in someone.

With regard to related matters, Barth preferred the term «constancy» to the traditional «immutability» because of his key emphasis on God's essential freedom but that finally amounts to a distinction without a real difference.

If your god (or any god) provides some concrete evidence of his existence, then there would be an actual choice to make; otherwise, it's just believing what someone else tells you without any real reason to.

I thought, when I first met her, that getting to know somebody who lived her whole life, every minute, every day, without even a thought, not even a hint of God, would be a real revelation for me.

My God is real for without God nothing around you would be able to exist... Sure he can be a jerk but him being a jerk is just like a Father beating a rapist of his own daughter... LOL you are pathetic

There is no problem to believe in God's existence, but it is a real problem to obey him in this bad world without facing great loss (money, relations, power, honor, material wealth, etc..)

There are many people that don't believe in God and it always leads to them not being happy with their life or needing proof because they were taught in school without proof it can't be real.

Why would you choose hell over eternal fellowship with God without truly examining it to make absolutely sure that it's not real.

Meanwhile Jesus has from the first been gathering disciples, to whom he imparts fuller instruction about the parabolic teaching which he gives to the multitudes; he tells them that the purpose of this method of teaching is to hide its real meaning from them that are without (4:11 - 12) but that to the disciples is given the mystery of the kingdom of God.

«the gate is narrow and few find it» Now, atheists on the other hand have a delusion that the world would somehow be a better place without God (real or imagined).

He remembers that there have been plenty of theologians down to the present day who by subtle doctrines and distinctions have not wanted to admit the meaning of that text from the Letter to Timothy, or who tried to evacuate its clear sense and force by saying that such non-Christians could not believe because they have not got the historical revelation of God's word and so could not be saved, because without real faith salvation is impossible.

He would agree with Marx that to be responsible to God without at the same time being responsible for the real means alienation.

Making religion / belief in God the bo ogey man is ignoring the real problems like children being raised without parental support / guidance and poverty.

You are using an abstract socially acceptably construct to falsly equivocate the idea that god is as provable as love without understanding that we prove if someone «loves» another person or thing through action whereas god is only provable in the most abstract way possble (if you believe gods real, then god is real).

Indeed, he finally assures us that the reality of God can be completely denied without in any way doing violence to the real meaning of the Christian witness.

Neither is the world adjectival to God in the sense that what happens in it is expressive of, but without real effect upon, the divine reality.

but i didn't state anything example — i stated that the theory of evolution is yet to be proved and so with that i agree that due to that lacking it is equal to the theory of god... the only thing i said which is cemented truth for anything is that we don't know what the real answer is... and by stating ideas as facts serves no real purpose but a selfish one... lets call it an ease - ment on the inner self, the mind can now be at peace with the hope that when i die i get to live yet again... full belief in this is insane without evidence.

18 Segundo emphasized that any «conception of God, which [206] views him solely as some immutable, self - sufficient nature without any real interest in what he himself brought about, is nothing but the rationalization of our own alienated societal relationships.»

It must have been teaching about the work of the living and real God and the moral demand which this God made upon all men without exception.

On the contrary, he argues that the perfect love of God must be willing to respect the freedom and accept the decisions of the creatures as real without necessarily approving them.

We can finally evolve without people telling scientists to «stop playing god» and get some real work done.

No real spiritual movement is possible without such unselfing; or as Tillich understood, we are stagnant until we become engaged in a critical struggle with old gods, loyalties and affirmations and confront emptiness and silence.

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

You want god and Heaven to be real, therefore you believe it.Your belief without evidence places it firmly in the category of wishful thinking.

The boundness to the triune God is the only basis on which changes at the other two levels can take place; without being open towards changes, there can only be an uncommitted factual living next to each other, no real fellowship.

This is no morbid theme, but the assurance of the Gospel that just as there is the ultimate demand of self - giving, so is there no real life or fulfilment without learning that he who loves can give himself up for God since God has given himself for us.

It is especially well equipped to do this as A Natural Theology for Our Time (Hartshorne); 15 it will take much longer as A Christian Natural Theology (Cobb).16 Our hope lies in the general cosmic process Hartshorne described when he wrote, «God is the cosmic «adventure» (Whitehead) integrating all real adventures as they occur, without ever failing in readiness to realize new states out of the divine potency.

So the offence of sin could be forgone by God's free will, but the damage done to our nature and the restoration of God's glory in the glorification of man could not be achieved without real healing and a commensurate price being paid.

But having said all that, I still believe in the one true «god», and that is the belief that we are all god, and the only way to find it is to have love in your heart, real compassion for others, without it, all is lost.

Belief in God may not be necessary in order for people to be highly moral beings, but the real question is: Can you rationally justify your unconditional adherence to timeless values without implicitly invoking the existence of God?

Without fully developing the correlation between God's real power and God's identity as love, Moltmann nevertheless did champion 1 John 4:8, 16.

And as far as embracing who we are made to be by God, this is becoming more real to me as I sense how the Lord works with me; I find that He works with how He made me without trying to get me to bend out of shape to be «balanced».

Clever name, it is my prayer that you will find God, that you will know, without a doubt, that He is real.

Without the Terror it is not experienced as a real God.

Just as we can't account for true, objective good without God, no one can recognize the real badness of evil without him.