top of page

Novice Karate Group (ages 8 & up)

Public·5 members
Ethan Murphy
Ethan Murphy

What Is The Nature And True Character Of God John R A Smith

God is known only by revelation; he stands revealed or remains forever unknown. He cannot be discovered in the laboratory, or by viewing all immensity through giant telescopes, or by cataloging all the laws of nature that do or have existed. A knowledge of his powers and the laws of nature which he has ordained does not reveal his personality and attributes to men in the true gospel sense. Certainly a knowledge of these laws and powers enables man to learn truths which are faith promoting and which help him to understand more about Deity; but saving knowledge of God comes only by revelation from the Holy Ghost as a consequence of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

What Is The Nature And True Character Of God John R A Smith

Practically speaking, I think the Savior is telling us here that each of us has the obligation and the opportunity to live in such a manner that our friends and family members can more fully understand what our Heavenly Father is actually like because they see something of His divine nature in us and the Holy Spirit is able to confirm that such examples are authentic.

Teleological arguments in the East go back as far as 100 C.E., where the Nyāya school in India argued for the existence of a deity based on the order found in nature. In the West, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics offered arguments for a directing intelligence of the world given the order found within it. There is an assortment of teleological arguments, but a common theme among them is the claim that certain characteristics of the natural world reflect design, purpose, and intelligence. These features of the natural world are then used as evidence for an intelligent, intentional designer of the world.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, the logical argument held sway. But by the end of that century, it was widely acknowledged by philosophers of religion that the logical problem had been rebutted. One reason is that as claims (1) and (2) are not explicitly contradictory, there must be hidden premises or unstated assumptions which make them so. But what might those be? The assumed premises/assumptions appear to be something along these lines: (a) an omnipotent God could create any world, (b) an omnibenevolent God would prefer a world without evil over a world with evil, and (c) God would create the world he prefers. Given these claims, (1) and (2) would be logically incompatible. However, it turns out that at least (a) may not be true, even on a classical theistic account. It could be that a world with free agents is more valuable than a world with no free agents. Further, it could be that such free agents cannot be caused or determined to do only what is morally right and good, even by God. If this is so, in order for God to create agents who are capable of moral good, God had to create agents who are capable of moral evil as well. If this is a logical possibility, and it seems to be so, then premise (a) is not a necessary truth because God cannot create just any world.

A theodicy, unlike a defense, takes on the burden of attempting to vindicate God by providing a plausible explanation for evil. The theodical approach often takes the following general form: God, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, will prevent/eliminate evil unless there is a good reason or set of reasons for not doing so. There is evil in the world. Therefore God must have a good reason or set of reasons for not preventing/eliminating evil. There are various attempts to demonstrate what that good reason is, or those good reasons are. Two important theodicies are those that appeal to the significance and value of free will, and those that appeal to the significance and value of acquiring virtuous traits of character in the midst of suffering.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.

Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.

According to philosopher Steven Lockwood, naturalism can be separated into an ontological sense and a methodological sense.[2] "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. On an ontological level, philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. This stronger formulation of naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[3] On the other hand, the more moderate view that naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true in the robust metaphysical sense, is called methodological naturalism.[4]

**This is true freedom. This is grace.**We read about freedom, dream about freedom, rejoice in the notion of freedom, teach, advocate, and hope for freedom, but what do we mean by freedom?

No Christian teaching is more fundamental than the doctrine of God. The Seventh-day Adventist biblical understanding of the Trinity helps us to understand the revealed nature, attributes, and character of God. In the last 15 years, much has been written on the history of the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Godhead or Trinity and, particularly, the position of Jesus in the Godhead.1 Less has been written on the history of Ellen G. White and the Adventist understanding of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead.2

Our Constitution remains the single greatest weapon we have, and is the true target of all attacks against our nation. Let's not give our enemies what they want by diluting it r undermining it in any way. Daiyu - IN

As we commemerate the 10th anniversary of that treadful day, let us not forget what our forfathers set forth as a blueprint for us to follow. We can't let this one act of violence, and others like it, to change what we know true freedom to be. We know what it is, and what it isn't.yyKevin - OH

The true test of character is how you keep your values when under stress. No intelligent person ever said freedom was easy. Sometimes it is even harder to maintain freedom when things are easy - it can quietly slip away. Margaret - NY

Lest we forget what we fight for... "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." Semper Fi DD's Steven - TX

The September 11,2001 terrorist attack still leaves me speechless. It is a true testiment of how far hatred will take men. When people blindly follow a lie against a person or a people, the results almost always ends tragicly. let the following be your test of Hatred: You can always identify when you are following lies, because a lie creates feelings of fear, distrust, and always hate. Hate is always distructive by its very nature. it ignites people to do things that they wouldn't ordinarily do. let us never ever for get that Hate gave us 3000 deaths on September 11, 2001. lives that we can never get back. Vickie - SC

Kratos, having survived his apparent death from releasing the power of Hope in the Greek World, ended up in Ancient Egypt and resides in the Norse realm of Midgard. He fathered a young son named Atreus, who is unaware of his true nature. Kratos instead, uses a big axe called the Leviathan Axe that originally used to belonged from his second wife Laufey (or Faye), who recently passed away. Her very last wish was for her ashes to be spread from the highest peak of the Nine Realms. Reaching at Midgard's peak, they learn from Mímir that the highest peak is actually in Jötunheim. Along their own journey, they are confronted by the Æsir god Baldur, the brother of Thor whose sons are Modi and Magni. The two then both assist their uncle, but are now killed by Kratos and Atreus. Around this time, Atreus falls ill. To cure him, Kratos must now recover his oldest weapon, the Blades of Chaos, in order to than battle the beings of Helheim (as the Leviathan Axe is useless there). While retrieving the old blades, Athena also appears and goads him about his past. Kratos now journeys to Hel and retrieves the cure. After curing Atreus, Kratos reveals to him that he is a God.

However though, Callisto never encountered with Zeus once again (due to him leaving her behind and developing into more isolated and unattended person than he ever was before ). At this moment, both Kratos and Deimos felt very abandoned and left unaware about what their own true heritage is. Therefore as well, they do not have much certitude and certainty about who their real father was at this time yet. Like all of the other Spartan youths, Kratos and other children were observed and tested to see if they were emotionally healthy and physically fit enough to bravely join the Spartan Army. The young siblings were than monitored and trained to fight by the Spartan authorities. If they were not able to do so, it would then mean that the two siblings would be sent to the mountains and left both the childrens to fend for themselves. 350c69d7ab


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...


Something went wrong
bottom of page