I write this in response to the most recent post that was submitted by my brother on his site concerning luck. I do not offer my opinions in order to give offense, but I have definite thoughts on the matter, and I thought this would be a good forum for them.....plus he's a big boy, and I think he can handle a little back and forth.
I have a simple question to pose to the advocates of luck/fortune/fate..etc: "What is the difference between the world being controlled by chance and the world being controlled by god? Immediately upon reading Jim's most recent comments it occured to me that the popular belief in luck springs from an attempt to deny a creator and controller of the universe and the happenings therein, but after further thought I cannot even say that. No, it seems, rather, that luck is just a renaming of God, but tell me, isn't a rose still a rose by any other name (cheap Shakespearean rip-off, I know)? Allow me to expound.
When I say that luck is governing my life, rather than denying the presence of an all-controlling being, though that may be my intention, I am instead giving ultimate control to what can be titled chance. If I believe that there are coincidences that I can choose to see or not see, even these then must have some rhyme or reason. Chance gives them their reason and is therefore transformed into a god-like figure.
The oft' heard objection, I can hear it now, says, "I don't believe that there is a God", but one cannot then believe in chance. It falls under the same category, in my opinion, as those who say that they do not believe in absolute truths. They will pound their fists and proclaim that they absolutely hold that there can be no absolutes, never realizing that they are making an absolute statement. I realize this is an over-used cliche, but the point is clearly made. I can't claim there to be no governing authority over the planet (Go) and turn-around and claim there is (chance). Logically this does not add up.
I am not one to pummel people about the head with the idea that their conception of God must be identical to mine. I recognize that Plato recognized a Demiurge, Aristotle had a First Cause, and there is a plethora in-between theirs and mine, but if one is intellectual honest one must give due credit to a God, whatever he/it is called. To not do so amounts to something akin to an ostrich with his head in the sand.
So stand up proudly, you followers of Chance; look around and see the view from your perch. Notice your neighbors: Christians, Muslims, Jews...etc: are you that far off from the rest of us? Certainly I am not suggesting all religions take different paths to the same end, but I am suggesting that religion (though I'm sure there must be exceptions) begins from the basis of a God-head. Call it what you will, but one cannot hide from reason.
I invite your thoughts and opinions.
Much needed disclaimer: it occurs to me at this moment that this strayed a bit from Jim's post, so let me reaffirm that I mean no offense. I saw a soap-box and took the opportunity to grandstand upon it. His post was just the seed that was planted in me, and it has grown into this monster.
I have a simple question to pose to the advocates of luck/fortune/fate..etc: "What is the difference between the world being controlled by chance and the world being controlled by god? Immediately upon reading Jim's most recent comments it occured to me that the popular belief in luck springs from an attempt to deny a creator and controller of the universe and the happenings therein, but after further thought I cannot even say that. No, it seems, rather, that luck is just a renaming of God, but tell me, isn't a rose still a rose by any other name (cheap Shakespearean rip-off, I know)? Allow me to expound.
When I say that luck is governing my life, rather than denying the presence of an all-controlling being, though that may be my intention, I am instead giving ultimate control to what can be titled chance. If I believe that there are coincidences that I can choose to see or not see, even these then must have some rhyme or reason. Chance gives them their reason and is therefore transformed into a god-like figure.
The oft' heard objection, I can hear it now, says, "I don't believe that there is a God", but one cannot then believe in chance. It falls under the same category, in my opinion, as those who say that they do not believe in absolute truths. They will pound their fists and proclaim that they absolutely hold that there can be no absolutes, never realizing that they are making an absolute statement. I realize this is an over-used cliche, but the point is clearly made. I can't claim there to be no governing authority over the planet (Go) and turn-around and claim there is (chance). Logically this does not add up.
I am not one to pummel people about the head with the idea that their conception of God must be identical to mine. I recognize that Plato recognized a Demiurge, Aristotle had a First Cause, and there is a plethora in-between theirs and mine, but if one is intellectual honest one must give due credit to a God, whatever he/it is called. To not do so amounts to something akin to an ostrich with his head in the sand.
So stand up proudly, you followers of Chance; look around and see the view from your perch. Notice your neighbors: Christians, Muslims, Jews...etc: are you that far off from the rest of us? Certainly I am not suggesting all religions take different paths to the same end, but I am suggesting that religion (though I'm sure there must be exceptions) begins from the basis of a God-head. Call it what you will, but one cannot hide from reason.
I invite your thoughts and opinions.
Much needed disclaimer: it occurs to me at this moment that this strayed a bit from Jim's post, so let me reaffirm that I mean no offense. I saw a soap-box and took the opportunity to grandstand upon it. His post was just the seed that was planted in me, and it has grown into this monster.
I believe in the authority and sufficiency of the bible, which is great for debating with other bible believers. However, if the gospel is to be apologized to the not believer, this is the wonderfully correct logic that is necessary to bring that person to the bible. Michael, your argument falls right in line with Paul's in Romans 1 and his teaching that God reveals himself generally to all people by his created things. Only when this argument is realized can we see God's special and specific revelation. It is truly a starting place.