In addition, both Kaspi and Spinoza held that only man is capable of loving God, whereas God does not love man (Kaspi, Commentary on Isaiah, p. 151; Spinoza, Ethics, On the Ability of the Intellect, Theorem 17).
God the Father was just a stronger, more intelligent God capable of guiding the weaker intelligences, like us.
The Arminians, on the other hand, believed that all men are capable of receiving God's grace if they are believers and if they fulfill certain other conditions.
In this version of tawhid, believers are thus understood to be duty-oriented beings who can touch the gates of heaven only by obeying religious authorities, the only ones deemed capable of deciphering God's word, and by fulfilling duties as defined by these authorities.
Which brings me to the question: Why did I continue plugging away at "How the Mind Works" given that (a) in fact, I didn't understand most of it and (b) the part I did understand -- on the subject, roughly, of how we have been fashioned by the forces of evolution in the form of natural selection to have minds that are capable of postulating God -- threw me into a panic attack?
Is it possible that only those who are perfect are capable of serving God and of serving each other?
Edward Dwelly, a Scottish lexicographer, lists tarbh-boidhre as "Monster, demon" and "God capable of changing himself into many forms"; tarbh-aoidhre is given as a northern counties variation.
Mother Teresa once said, "Prayer enlarges the heart until it is capable of containing God's gift of himself".
If God is capable of not only capable of, but having it as His inherent nature to be creating something, what could possibly prevent that thing's occurrence at every moment in which God is expressing God's own nature (which should be every moment forever)?
Images of the Tirthankara are not worshiped as personal gods capable of giving blessings or interfering with human events.
