The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Are we safe? > Comments

Are we safe? : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 29/6/2009

The danger with attempting to over-manage risk is that it becomes the main game and distracts us from the life at hand.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Nobody is safe. Farmers have a saying, you have livestock, there will be dead stock. The Bible says only a diamond can sharpen a diamond, and a good understanding of risk, is necessary to live a life worth living. It is all very well to try to minimize risk, but if you are born, you will die physically. It is just a question of when. If you are lucky, born with a fair amount of intelligence, get yourself educated, and work hard, then there is a fair chance you will live a long life, but there are no guarantees.

It seems Sells has updated his picture. He has aged considerably. What he is saying though is essentially correct. People are so scared of fear, they refuse to live. I liked the quote from Keith Miller, when asked if he was stressed by the pressures of test cricket. His reply was that that was not stress, stress was flying a mosquito fighter bomber with a Me 109 on your tail. A certain amount of risk is essential to a full and happy life.

I see a mention of Hillsong Church, and a linking of that Church with materialism. Hillsong is all about spirituality, taking a huge risk, in believing that Almighty God is indeed sovereign, and putting your trust in Him. That so many actually go there and continue to attend is a testimony in itself.

When the Anglicans and Roman Catholic Churches have captive audiences for most of their formative years, attending their educational institutions, but cannot retain ninety percent of their students after they leave school is a rejection of the teaching of fear as a weapon. The Lutheran Church, by contrast is said to retain ninety percent of their students to do life together.

Instead of being central to the management of risk, and teaching the essentials of good government adopted by the English, to the chagrin of Rome, as set out in the Gospels, both have abdicated their responsibilities, and consequently lost their central place in society. A nanny State has replaced them and become secular Church
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 2 July 2009 7:37:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
opinionated quoted the same questions at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8830
and as he hasnt responded it appears the reply is as it is..[as it rebuts the general missconception of a vengefull god,..many claim god to be[wrongly]..lets just add here..that we forget who's realm this is

as i wrote at the other topic in genesis its god till in gen2;4 it becomes lord god[that is blamed...further the lord[of this realm]did the flood thing and the hardening of the heart...

see that those who claim to love the life GIVER..[god]...who think the life giver is pleased with ANY death...is insulting the living loving grace that god is...even a beast knows its masters voice..[and the good/god that gives and sustains even the most vile living..[to live]..does not takeaway his gift

[but the lord of this realm..is only too willing to let those who dont know the eternal living/light/love/life/good[god]..believe as they chose...for indeed we are a willfull and foolish generation wrought of clay...so fixated in our own[self]..of materialistic being's..as to put the higher things of spirit behind us so unthinkingly..

as those of the days gone by did before us..[who shake the dust from their sandles,...even when the great treacher briefly visited FROM his realm into/our fathers..[lords]..material/realm to bring some enlightenment to the topic,

and divide the..[this realms/lords house]..[the faulse god head of this realm..[the decievers realm]..just as anyone..is lord in their own realm/castle...so is satan lord of this realm..[know the lord of this one..is not..the master of them all]

jesus..[you shall call him god within us all]..emanuel...was offered this..[satans..[realm and refused it]..but it seems he cast his seed on stoney ground...and i..it seems clear am casting them onto muddied waters..[ammoung the weeds]...how dare you lot missjudge your true god

ye cannot serve two masters[you cant have a foot in each house]..there comes a time when you must chose...to accept LOVE/light/grace/mercy/life..or accept fear/hate/darkness/death..

they are clear oppisites...the life GIVER dont kill/murder..how can you not see...but jesus couldnt change that we love[in our heart]god lives there/

know how great your own church/body is by knowing it houses gods living spirit[emanuel..god within]
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 2 July 2009 8:53:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

Your ‘thesis’ on risk-taking/ risk aversion, as has already been commented on here in that it resonates to some extent with the modern obsession on safety - but your solution to the ‘problem’ is not quite so resounding. Christians may well recognise, “that Christ is God, the Lord, the one with whom we have to deal” but others certainly have legitimate symbolism. Buddhist detachment is not merely “practiced in order to avoid pain”. Attachment is one translation of the word trishna - which can also be translated as thirst, desire, lust, craving, or clinging. The inference here is that when we fail to recognise that all things are imperfect, impermanent, and insubstantial, we cling to them in the delusion that they are indeed perfect, permanent, and substantial. I find this little different, in essence, to many religious teachings on idolatry. By clinging to these delusions, we most definitely make false assumptions for ‘perfection’, ‘permanence’ or ‘substantiality’.

Whilst you have an aversion to liberalism, and I guess theologian Paul Tillich falls under this broad umbrella , I think he’s quite right in saying, “…[w]e relate symbols to each other. We explain their meaning. There is language in every religion, and the existence of language means that there are universals, and of universals that there are concepts, and of concepts that one must think, even on the most primitive level.”

Gregory of Nyssa (to whom you have referred) moved beyond Aristotle's psychological explanation. Using the metaphor of a city in which family members come in by various gates but all meet somewhere inside, Gregory said this can occur only if we presuppose a transcendent self to which all of one's experiences are referred (Making of Man 10 [152 - 153]). Only the human nous has a transcendent nature in addition to its ‘energies’ – this is what makes us like God. Gregory is almost Kantian (and ‘liberal’) in his view of God, who being dependent on nothing, governs the universe through the ‘risky’ free exercise of will, with our ‘nous’ made in his image.
Posted by relda, Thursday, 2 July 2009 8:55:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Relda,
I am not sure I understand much of your post. My naive understanding of Buddhism is that detachment is a work one does that leaves the person essentially alone. That is, it is not about finding the self in the other. Instead of being immersed in the world, one attempts to be separate from it. If this is even remotely correct it is the antithesis of Christianity.
A useful dialectic on the problem of the modern thirst for security and perfection is between utopia and presence. Modernity, unchecked will strive for utopia and exhaust itself. This is opposed to a striving for presence, the presence of God and therefore our presence transformed.
I do not understand your reference to Nyssa, is this a universalising statement about the world religions or a statement of how individuals come to the faith? Surely it must be the latter.
Tillich may have said the odd good thing but his theology is impossible.
Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Thursday, 2 July 2009 10:46:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"A useful dialectic on the problem of the modern thirst for security and perfection is between utopia and presence. Modernity, unchecked will strive for utopia and exhaust itself." - Sells

The above concept is almost Daoist. The Ancient Chinese emphasised "moderation", because, if there was great good, good must exist in-kind with its complementary, bad, and to the equal magtitude. Yet, I apprecaite Sells' point, that it healthy to live in the present (journey), rather than in a state-of-suspension pending the attainment of a future goal, if that is the point he is trying to make.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 2 July 2009 11:36:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,

Re-read your bile! Shouldn't you stop pretending to represent God?

If you believe that the Bible is correct and that God murdered innocent men, women and children, and allows slavery aren't you a blasphemer? Isn't that sacrilegious?

On one hand you call God loving & merciful and yet you acknowledge that GOD has done the most horrid deeds to mankind! If you believe GOD has the right to murder innocents you are simply WRONG!

Are you a nutty Pharisee?

Did you even blink when you answered, YES, that GOD had drowned innocent babies, children, unborn babies in their mothers wombs etc.?

Then you state...<<You cannot be incensed by such a merciful God>>

And you are wrong here...<<...don't forget that Pharoah many times hardened his own heart just as it appears you have done.>>

You misrepresent the Bible!

Exodus 7:3-4: "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you,....."

So even though some of the verses say Pharoah remained stubbourn, his stubbourness was caused by God unleashing his power over Pharoah's heart! What sort of merciful, loving God would do this?

But worse, then you show your lack of Christianity by stating I have a rotten heart and am corrupt-you FAIL "Do not judge others" Matthew 7? Are you smart enough to assess anyone?

Runner...Are you an angry, little person? Your claim to be Christian is looking somewhat tarnished! I turn the other cheek!Matthew 5:39

Now OUG - the fact that I haven't gotten back to you on the other thread is one of time constraints. It takes time to read your messy, poorly constructed contributions and sort through the garbage.

You say this is Satan's realm...well that is laughable! Satan doesn't exist...Aren't you the deceiver here by typing such rubbish?

I pray to God that he assists you in your abilities in sentence structure and communication skills..I hope he answers at least that prayer...Ha!

Oh you might also like to read...Is the Bible inerrant, infallible or God's word? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 2 July 2009 1:28:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy