31 Oct 05
I've asked variations of this question before, and have been ignored. Now you have the entire thread to ignore.
I've often observed xtians utter statements like, "Luckily my girlfriend told me about Jesus, and now I'm saved." When they bring out "luck" in this manner, are they professing a theology (Luck was a god in some ancient pantheons) that is inherently hostile to the core of their professed beliefs?
31 Oct 05
Originally posted by WulebgrI agree with you and I find I still use that word from time to time,
I've asked variations of this question before, and have been ignored. Now you have the entire thread to ignore.
I've often observed xtians utter statements like, "Luckily my girlfriend told me about Jesus, and now I'm saved." When they bring out "luck" in this manner, are they professing a theology (Luck was a god in some ancient pantheons) that is inherently hostile to the core of their professed beliefs?
when divine providence could be just as useful when we think of
something occurring with perfect timing.
Kelly
31 Oct 05
Originally posted by WulebgrI think it's similar to when non-believers use "Oh my God" or "Heaven help us." Just part of the practical language.
I've asked variations of this question before, and have been ignored. Now you have the entire thread to ignore.
I've often observed xtians utter statements like, "Luckily my girlfriend told me about Jesus, and now I'm saved." When they bring out "luck" in this manner, are they professing a theology (Luck was a god in some ancient pantheons) that is inherently hostile to the core of their professed beliefs?
31 Oct 05
Originally posted by telerionPractical language has deeper implications, unless you believe that George Orwell was spewing feces in 1984 when he accurately predicted the language of Ronald Reagan, naming it doublespeak.
I think it's similar to when non-believers use "Oh my God" or "Heaven help us." Just part of the practical language.
31 Oct 05
Originally posted by eagles54I guess I'd have to be a lot more knowledgeable than I am to give
A question:
Is divine providence the same as active intervention?
thank you
you a correct answer to that one. In other words, I don’t know! I do
know that God says He works all things together for the good of those
that love Him and are called according to His purpose. How that plays
out in something we’d call lucky or divine providence I’m not sure.
Kelly
31 Oct 05
Whether one uses the term secular term "luck" or the theological term "providence" , I think what they have in common is that when used to reference something good happening it is a backward look or hindsight. To me "luck" has a more immediate connotation where "providence" has more to do with an important legacy.
31 Oct 05
Originally posted by WulebgrOk, well, I didn't have deeper meanings then. Just a shallow vocabulary. 🙂
Practical language has deeper implications, unless you believe that George Orwell was spewing feces in 1984 when he accurately predicted the language of Ronald Reagan, naming it doublespeak.
31 Oct 05
Originally posted by eagles54I guess that depends on the level of hands off you think God had
I have the feeling God starting the whole ball rolling, gave us wisdom and compassion as our birthright, and set us on our way to do as we may.
I don't think there is any such thing as luck or divine intervention of any sort.
to use to "...set us on our way..." which has some deeper meaning
too.
Kelly
31 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. He was simply its most effective and powerful practitioner. Indeed, many of his most absurd manifestations became so influential that pinkos like Billy-boy Clinton took them as Gospel Truths. Reagan's famous Welfare Queen is a case in point. Of course, in a certain sense, the Royal family of England lives on a sort of welfare and entitlements, but Reagan was highlighting a poor black woman (and a non-existent one to boot) with his terminology.
An aside, you think double speak started with Reagan?
Kelly
31 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrI believe they all do, with intent and without. I think that you and
No. He was simply its most effective and powerful practitioner. Indeed, many of his most absurd manifestations became so influential that pinkos like Billy-boy Clinton took them as Gospel Truths. Reagan's famous Welfare Queen is a case in point. Of course, in a certain sense, the Royal family of England lives on a sort of welfare and entitlements, but Reagan was highlighting a poor black woman (and a non-existent one to boot) with his terminology.
I may feel that our two contemporary figures of Reagan and Clinton,
are or were the best/worse at it. I do believe had we lived with each
of our forefathers, we may have to acknowledge that there were
more than a few that could give those two a run for their money,
or in reality our money as the case maybe. ROFL
Kelly
31 Oct 05
Originally posted by KellyJayTrue, good point.
I guess that depends on the level of hands off you think God had
to use to "...set us on our way..." which has some deeper meaning
too.
Kelly
I think God is going to let us sink or swim on our own accord. All of us in one boat. No exceptions.
Just my opinion.