Oh..so suddenly it's a Christian society now is it Spenser.

Actually, stupid me was believing it was actually a secular society in which it's gone out of its way to distance itself from anything but Buddhist. But of course, Buddhism is not a religion so it fits.

And Buddhism also fits the yuppie view without the need to say it.
And so, using my practical application logic, just check out the beautiful peaceful Burmese Buddhist persecution of Muslims. Loping heads off, burning out villages.

Let's leave the naughty Christians out of the equation, and stick to the peaceful alternatives, for another excuse to overpopulate Australia. It fits better, the inner city Green is beautiful view you espouse.

Dan

Well said Diver Dan, you echo my words perfectly.

Spencer Gear what a complete load of utter rubbish.

Scott Morrison is a clever man and he knows full well that a country is run by laws or sentiment. Not religion. If you think the latter you are welcome to live in, for example, Iran.

Clearly you have not followed news reports. The Prime Minister has said, reiterated by Peter Dutton and others, by allowing these people to stay will be a key signal for people smugglers to restart their dastardly work. He for one does not wish to see thousands of people perish at sea.

This man had lied and, on seven occasions, a court of law has rejected his asylum. I suppose now in your eyes our courts are incorrect too.

Yes Biblical Justice should certainly be imposed on all Corrupt Politicians put before NSW ICAC, not just Sydney Chinese MPs.

In 2020 retreaded Christian Fundamentalist Morrison must preach the true Word of Our Lord as Expressed in the Bible. Morrison need sayeth:

"THE PUNISHMENT FOR BLASPHEMY IS DEATH BY STONING"

As taught in "Leviticus 24:13-23" which Morrison will quote in Parliamentary Question Time.

13 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 14 “Bring out of the "camp" [meaning homosexual orgy of course] the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation STONE HIM.

15 And speak to the people of Israel, saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. 16 Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be PUT TO DEATH.

All the congregation shall STONE HIM. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be PUT TO DEATH."

PUT TO DEATH would save loads of time and lawyers' fees in ICAC, Aye?!

Note the following STONING Training Film for Spencer Gear's pleasure http://youtu.be/ffwFXGPRDu4?t=1m8s

Yes, let's forgive those who trespass against us Open up the prisons and let those folk have their freedom.

Sad as it is, these folk broke our laws and paid people traffickers a fortune for passage to Australia. It's sad also that they weren't wise enough, to practise contraception but brought children into the world while they exhausted every bona fide legal avenue to overturn a repatriation order.

The gentleman was a regular tourist into, it would seem, ISIS-controlled territory.

Now there may be a perfectly innocent explanation, but I for one am not aware of it. Good liars are expert at fooling the gullible and that's what I fear this gentleman may have done. Be it his wife and family and the good folk of Biloela?

If we make one exception and as a result of loud public noise, then why not a dozen, then a hundred, then a thousand in what good for one? Is a precedent for all the other economic migrants who want to come and stay filling occupations and shool and hospital places, paid for with increasingly scarce taxpayer funds

. It's all well and good to urge Christian charity, but that has to begin at home and a good place to start would be our own disadvantaged and homeless first!
Alan B.

Yeah. Bit of a joke bringing Christianity into anything going on in post-Christian Australia. The rabid mobs who hate our sovereignty and border protection also hate Christianity; they hate our democracy and rule of law, based on Christian principles.

Additionally, the PM's faith and beliefs are private. Are the Marxists and society wreckers not the first agitators to bring up the separation of church and government at every opportunity?

It's hypocritical to reject Christianity but invoke it when you have run out of arguments in favour of people who have been found to be non-refugees seven times and still going.

Just who the hell does this bloke think he is, God!

No one has given him the authority to destroy our kids & grand kids heritage by allowing gate crashers like these people in to the country do it.

Anyone who comes uninvited should be chucked out without any access to the legal aid or the courts.

We don't need them, & in fact it is totally to our disadvantage to allow any of them to stay.

Go find some other way to display your virtue Spencer, one that does not have you usurping the well being of anyone other than yourself.

As far as I'm aware, the only entity Scott Morrison needs to obey? Are the Australian voters! Furthermore, Hasbeen is correct in calling out virtue signalling!

Virtue signalling is all well and good when others have to pick up the tab! And always thus with this cohort, be they belligerent greens trying to enforce their will by being a tail that wags the dog, or bible bashing control freaks who know the mind of God!?

If religious freedom had to stand up to the same reality check as racial discrimination and vilification laws!? Some of the things espoused in the name of Christian belief? Wouldn't be able to be said, least not without being tested in a court of law.

This couple broke our fair and just laws and have exhausted, for them, every legal avenue to redress their unenviable situation and at our expense tying up our courts etc, in the convoluted process!

Enough already! Want to resettle here? Then follow the lead of others and come in the front door as invited guests! End of story!
Alan B.

The issue is not whether this Scott Morrison is a saint or a sinner, but how come the fate of the people of Biloela, including whom they can live with, is determined by foreigners in Canberra, 1200 kilometres away!

It is fine if this Morrison and his gang are not good Christians and are not happy to allow the family into Australia - they have a free choice, but they have no moral right to disrespect the free choice of the people of Biloela/Queensland and deny them the ability to choose their neighbours. This has nothing to do with the red-herring of whether or not the family are or can be defined as refugees.

This Morrison, just like he says, does not owe the family any protection or welfare (nor are the people of Biloela/Queensland asking for it), but it does not mean that he can legitimately pluck them forcibly and so brutally from their community to pack up their lives in 10 minutes. If he wants, he could for example forbid them to leave Queensland or to become Australian residents/citizens, these could be set as conditions on their visa.

Good article Spencer.

Morrison and our faux Christians need to be called out on their hypocrisy.

Does Scott realize that the bible condones slavery?
If he supports the word of God means he also supports slavery then the Christians can volunteer, but count me out. How is going to be the slave owners? Big Business or parliamentarians. In either case would you trust them with your life?

The legal process is far more respected by some when it puts away Catholic clergy.

I noticed something here that has commonality.

Quote>>It's quite clear if you look at the ministerial intervention guidelines, this case [of the Tamil family] meets those guidelines more clearly than the two au pair cases in which the minister [Mr Dutton] acted within hours," said Abul Rizvi, former deputy secretary of the Immigration Department<<

Hmmm... I thought who the hell is this Abul Rizvi?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/india-born-in-immigration-system/story-I5uh63HuHiZvD12z0jMAdM.html

"In 1989, Australia was the second country in the world to adopt a points-based immigration system. The man who spearheaded the Australian system is the Indian-born Abul Rizvi, a deputy secretary in the Australian government's immigration agency."

So what you did Spencer, was use an immigrant to bolster a pro-immigrant argument.

You know whats in common with that and you religious folks?

You evangelicals will try to back up one piece of scripture with ever more scripture, just like you used the opinion of an immigrant to bolster your pro-immigrant argument.

I think it's kind of dumb, and by chance I just happen to be part of the 'war against stupid', so I though I'd let you know.

In reading through the Comments to this thread, I notice that Diver Dan, SF, plantagenet, ttbn, Hasbeen, Alan B, TheAtheist (Are you Hugh H?), and Fester did not address the content of what I wrote.

Instead, you attempted to direct the argument to your antagonism to Christianity, a topic you seem to be better prepared to respond to.

You avoided the issues I raised in this 'deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument'. So, you committed the Red Herring logical fallacy, http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring

This is erroneous reasoning. We can't have a rational discussion when you resort to this kind of deflection to anti-Christian sentiments.

Oh Boohoo! OzSpen

We, the OLO audience, have a right to address whatever we like.

Its a cheap shot (by the usual pro-boat immigration suspects) to use cute little children and the PM's religiosity to promote your Australia wrecking cause.

'This is erroneous reasoning. We can't have a rational discussion when you resort to this kind of deflection to anti-Christian sentiments.'

People who believe that this earth came from nothing with all its design have already thrown their brains out the window. The best they can do is mock people of faith while claiming they are rational. No wonder God hands them over to their denial delusions.

East ya hearts our monotheistic God botherers.

Ye should pay homage to the past Greek, Roman, Viking and current Hindu empires/Indian pantheon who

were/are more advanced in believing there are several Gods and ALSO have a place for female Goddesses

- Value plus, Aye?!

This Hindu/Indian Gods-Pantheon Training Film is aimed at those of OLO who are diasabled/disadvantaged

with one god only http://youtu.be/V_NJAJGCKD8

diver dan,

<<Oh..so suddenly it's a Christian society now is it Spenser (sic).>>

At no point in my article did I state Australia is a 'Christian society'. I appealed to the evangelical Prime Minister Scott Morrison to fulfill his divine responsibility:'Speak up for people who cannot speak for themselves. Help people who are in trouble. Stand up for what you know is right, and judge all people fairly. Protect the rights of the poor and those who need help' (Proverbs 31:8-9).

<<Actually, stupid me was believing it was actually a secular society....>>

To the contrary, the foundation for Australia is in the Australian Constitution, the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia in 1900. It states:

"WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established", http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble

So, Dan, our foundation is not only Christian but appeals to the Judeo Christian Almighty God.

Sorry to advise, Dan, but this Constitution does not establish Buddhism as its foundation.

However, the nation is more than happy to accommodate and integrate people from other religious traditions.

Have the Australian Home Affairs ministers ever intervened in other illegal asylum seeker claims?

Many of the news reports have Morrison and Dutton defend sending the Tamil family back to Sri Lanka as, 'It can’t make exceptions based on community sentiment because to do so would send a positive signal to people smugglers'.

However, has the Australian govt ever made exceptions for asylum seekers?

The Guardian Australia on Wed, 4 September, reported that,

'On Wednesday morning Morrison spoke to 3AW radio’s Neil Mitchell. Both Morrison and Mitchell used the term “illegal immigrants” to refer to people who sought asylum in Australia by boat. Mitchell asked Morrison if the minister had ever “intervened with illegal immigrants”, noting that he had used his intervention powers more than 4,000 times.

'Morrison replied: “Not to my knowledge. I’m not aware of all those 4,000 cases. There are many of them, I used to be an immigration minister".

'There is at least one known, reported case of Dutton intervening on behalf of someone the government would describe as an illegal immigrant.

'In July, Guardian Australia revealed Dutton approved a plan to bring a refugee child to Australia after he was lobbied by Nauruan authorities. The stateless Rohingya boy, whose parents were murdered in front of him in Myanmar, arrived on Christmas Island by boat in October 2013. He spent a number of years on Nauru before Dutton agreed to let him settle in Australia with two relatives.

'Separately, among the more than 4,000 cases of ministerial-level intervention are the infamous au pairs.

'The minister has also intervened in other cases that have prompted community concern, including families facing deportation because a member has a health condition or disability which excludes them from getting a visa.

'There is also convicted drug trafficker William Betham, whose visa was cancelled in 2016 on character grounds but returned in 2017', http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/04/biloela-tamil-family-deportation-case-the-truth-behind-the-claims

It's time for Morrison and Dutton to step up to the mark and intervene for the Tamil family that is deeply loved by the people of Biloela. Add them to the 4,000 exceptions.

Reading this article and its comments is a rather discouraging experience.

It brings to mind Man's Inhumanity to Man. Sometimes it's embarrassing to be a human being.

Christianity has nothing to do with what is happening to the Tamil family...only good, natural, human morals would do.

We know that even atheists are moral persons...there's no need to be a Christian to do what is right...we all know what is right.

I agree with the author about practicing the Golden Rule.
We have here a family that is established and has children. Someone said they should not have had a family....were they supposed to put their life on halt to wait for the government to make a final determination? No. We are free human beings and should be allowed to live our lives freely.

Apparently they face danger in their country...
They've been through a great deal, most persons raised in a wealthy and free country would not even be able to bear what they've been through.

The only reason they are able to withstand this nightmare is because they have witnessed how mean and unloving life can be...how unjust it can be.

I believe that if they've been absorbed into the community and are raising their family in a normal and loving way,,,they should not be put through anymore heartache.

Live and let live.

Let's show some human love.
Let's try to help each other instead.
The government has too much power and sometimes is not just.

Next time it might be one of us....

GodsGrace; Never mind “Reading this article and its comments is a rather discouraging experience.” So are your comments.

“Christianity has nothing to do with what is happening to the Tamil family” No it hasn’t, the law does, unless you don’t mind breaking it. They should have come here the legal way as millions before them have.

Clearly you haven’t a clue what has transpired here.
The family came here illegally and paid some shadow underworld characters to bring them.

They were told originally that the likelihood of them being allowed to stay was little or none. Having a child/children would not help their cause. International Law says that a child born to foreign parents does not give them the right to citizen ship.

“Apparently they face danger in their country.” No - wrong. The war is over and the man has been back to his country some 4 times quite safely.

There are thousands of people living in dreadful conditions in DP camps around the world waiting for the opportunity to come here, so you are saying these people, who are economic refuges should be given preferential treatment?

If the likes of Keneally had any decency she would stand up for the murdered unborn babies right under her nose instead of this fake moral posturing. Another proof of evolution being a complete fraud as virtue signalling taking over real morality.

What I find amusing is that all these non Christians are defining what a Christian is obliged to do to be a "real Christian".

According to these sanctimonious phoneys "real Christians" are gullible half wits who are obliged to cave in to any con artist's sob story irrespective of the hundreds of deaths that will result.

The reality is that these virtue signallers don't give a crap about the people they kill as a result of moronic policies as long as they can claim the moral high ground. The rank hypocrisy of Labor is their virtue signalling against a policy they put in place.

Hi GodsGrace,

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for contributing.

"Christianity has nothing to do with what is happening to the Tamil family...only good, natural, human morals would do.

We know that even atheists are moral persons...there's no need to be a Christian to do what is right...we all know what is right."

Do we?
What is 'right' and WHY is it right?

You mention 'The Golden Rule' - 'Do unto others';

I think 'Do unto others' is just one part of doing 'what is right', but it should not form the entire moral compass of your decision making process.

The human race has learned many new things over time.
I'd like to share 2 of these things.

Firstly I'd like to bring to mind a man named Socrates.
People say he was a gay man that used to argue everything in circles...
- Maybe so, I don't know -

From him we devised a method of arguing things 'based on merit'.
And this was probably an important improvement for human beings, given that previously the planet was more prone to decision making and human progress being constrained by fear and superstition.

We move a little further along in history and we get JS Mills 'Harm Principle'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

I myself word it a little differently,
I say 'Everybody has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't affect others in an adverse manner'.

Emphasis: AS long as it does not have 'negative or detrimental impact' to others.

Since you mentioned morals, I think it good to remind everyone the difference between ethics and morals;
Ethics is 'knowing' the difference between right and wrong and morals is 'how you act upon' this knowledge.

So you can't have good morals if you don't already possess good ethics.

And this personally is where I think Christians get into trouble, they think that someone they were imbued with ethics, when all they've done is put religion into the space where they should've put real ethics but I digress.

[Cont.]

Apart from the 'Harm Principle' one of the easiest kinds of ethical principles to learn is about fairness.
Ethics of 'fairness' states 'What you do for one you do for the other'.

Is making this 'exception' fair to others who went about it the right way?
What message does that send?
'What is right?'

You also need to look at 'The Bigger Picture'.

What if your approach results in other negative consequences?
What if this outcome results in a new boatload deciding to make the voyage and 50 men women and kids drown?
Will you then plead ignorance or say 'Gods Will' instead?
(Maybe it was man's will; Maybe it was yours)
'What is right?'

And what about the members of the local community that oppose?
Your decision means these people have no choice at all, on an issue where these people I'm told, lied and did not go about coming to Australia the correct way?

Yet the local citizens who oppose will have no choice.
Should these citizens be imposed upon by foreigners who didn't do the right thing.
Should these citizens instead be not given any say in it?
'What is right?'

Christians seem to be ignorant of the bigger picture.

Don't just think 'Do unto others';
Weight that along with 'Everybody has the right to live hover they choose so long as it does not impact others in an adverse manner';
- And an understanding that you don't have the right to impose upon your fellow citizens with that which they oppose, and can negatively or detrimentally impact them.

'What is right?'

Hey Ozspen,

"Scott Morrison needs to 'obey God's message'."

Maybe Scott Morrison is trying to be the good shepherd by tending to his own flock first and foremost.
Maybe he's standing by the rules of ethics we expect from someone we voted to lead us.

Armchair Critic,

<<Maybe Scott Morrison is trying to be the good shepherd by tending to his own flock first and foremost.
Maybe he's standing by the rules of ethics we expect from someone we voted to lead us.>>

Firstly, I didn't vote for Morrison to lead us. This is not like a USA Presidential election. I voted for a local person in my electorate.

Secondly, Christianity is an other-centred faith. The apostle Paul taught: 'Don’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others' (1 Cor 10:24). John the Baptist taught: 'If you have two shirts, give one to the poor. If you have food, share it with those who are hungry' (Luke 3:11).

It's not an either/or situation in Australia. By world standards, we are a prosperous country when compared with, say, Myanmar, the Congo and Sri Lanka.

OzSpen

If that's your attitude to voting, then you shouldn't be.

"Firstly, I didn't vote for Morrison to lead us. This is not like a USA Presidential election. I voted for a local person in my electorate."

You vote for a party here, not a person.

Hey Spencer,

"Firstly, I didn't vote for Morrison to lead us."

I didn't say you did, I said 'we';
- As a collective of Australian citizens under the accepted electoral rules 'we' call 'democracy'.

"Don’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others"

How do you know ScoMo didn't have the good of of the Australian people in mind in his decision; as opposed to his own interests, political or otherwise?

"John the Baptist taught: 'If you have two shirts, give one to the poor. If you have food, share it with those who are hungry'."

How do you know ScoMo doesn't do these things?
- And did John specify whether or not this gesture should be a personal thing or if its ok to spend a million plus of the taxpaxers collections for the benefit of a foreigners who broke the rules?
How many T-shirts and meals for Aussie's could you buy with that?
What do we have - half a million or more homeless citizens?

And as a believer, how do you know that going back where they came from isn't a part of 'Gods plan'?

(Though I'm not suggesting it is; and it's not for me to say)

As per my previous positions on your previous threads,
I'm going to once again go with my 'I don't know' position.

I don't know what's right in regards to this particular issue.

I just wanted to point out that knowing 'what is right' isn't as plain and simple as either you or GodsGrace make it out to be.
Actions have consequences, and there's sometimes many factors to consider.

Armchair Critic,

<<I just wanted to point out that knowing 'what is right' isn't as plain and simple as either you or GodsGrace make it out to be. Actions have consequences, and there's sometimes many factors to consider.>>

Are you going to accept God's view that, 'Doing right brings honour to a nation, but sin brings disgrace'? (Proverbs 14:34) What is right or righteous in a nation?

It would be strange in the sovereign God's administration of the universe if the connection between godliness (following God's laws) and blessing personally did not extend to the nations. We see it in the Israelite nation in the Old Testament where that nation could be a righteous or sinful nation.

So, righteousness (doing right) will bring honour to Australia but promoting sin will bring disgrace - not just for Australia but any nation. Didn't we see it in Hitler's Germany, Magabe's Zimbabwe and Nero's Roman Empire?

Knowing what is right is taught in the Book of Scripture. If Australia would follow this righteousness it will be honoured. However, we are not going down that route at the moment. Caring for the poor and disenfranchised is what we should be doing with the Tamil family. See my article.

SF,

<<You vote for a party here, not a person.>>

Really? Try telling that to Zali Steggall MP, Helen Haines MP, and Andrew Wilkie MP.

Hey OzSpen,

Based on what I know, I think this:

If they fled Sri-lanka to India to escape persecution then I'd class them as refugees when they went to India whether or not the Indian government did.

However, unless they now faced persecution in India for which they had to flee from also, then I wouldn't consider them refugees in their trip to Australia, I'd consider them migrants.

I don't know if they lied to the Australian government about the length of their stay in India or the situation there.

But I'd send them back too.
In fact I'd probably have done exactly what ScoMo has done.
Make them leave and send a clear message that the only way to come into Australia as a migrant is the right way, no exceptions.
And just as he's done, encourage them to reapply so they can officially be allowed in the right way to also show people there's a correct path to going about it.

It seems to me he's almost telling them 'Go, and then you can come back'.

The way I look at it, if these people started a gofundme page they'd probably raise $100,000 easily and be living well with their own private security.

These people were willing to put their kids on a boat;
It hardly seems like a big deal to catch a plane home, fill out the right paperwork knowing the Australian PM did himself encourage them to reapply.

Finally I don't see why 'escape from turmoil on home soil' should be a permanent thing anyway.
They were able to escape from what was happening at home and bring their family somewhere safe where things were better.
There's no need for any of these people to stay permanently if the situation in their home country stabilises.
What more do we owe them?

They should go home and try to be a part of making their home country better.
If they want to stay, they have to go about it the right way.

Let the bureaucracy take it's course, and I'm sure they'll be back soon enough.

Armchair Critic,

<<These people were willing to put their kids on a boat>>

I wish you would get your facts correct. This couple arrived in Australia as singles in 2012 and 2013. They married here and their children were born in Australia. They DID NOT bring their kids to Aust on a boat: 'their daughters Kopika, 4, and Tharunicaa, 2, were born in Australia', http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-01/mother-of-tamil-family-speaks-of-ordeal-on-christmas-island/11468422

On 7 Sept 19, The Guardian Australia reported:

"Some 52 refugees and asylum seekers in offshore detention have received temporary protection visas or safe haven enterprise visas, according to new statistics that fly in the face of the Morrison government’s refusal to allow the Biloela Tamil family to stay", http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/07/home-affairs-data-gives-lie-to-coalitions-refusal-to-let-biloela-tamil-family-stay.

The Australian Govt can change the visa status of refugees and asylum seekers when it suits them, but now refuses to take the same action for the Tamil family. I find it to be unconscionable behaviour by a Govt.

Hey Spencer,
I want to raise an issue with you on a much more serious topic.
But it's hard for me to find the right words for this topic.
It's going to all come out wrong I know it...

I don't know how much of this stuff I'm about to say is true and how much of it is still a working theory, but bear with me:

If my so-called 'conspiracy theorist' type concerns hold any merit at all;

Then I believe that Christians are walking themselves off a cliff, and they're going to take everyone with them; EVERYONE
And they're doing this with help from the progressives and all the other useful idiots that buy into PC, hate speech crap and the like.

Can I ask you do you know how badly your religion is under attack right now?
And the extremes others have done in order to carry it all out?

All this, (which I'll get too, just wait) and it seems you and Peter Bowden, the main Christian contributors are completely clueless as to whats going on.
Don't take this the wrong way, but the content of your articles seems unimportant or superficial - in the greater scheme of Christian issues.
It indicates to me that you're both in some kind of dormant state, unaware of whats really happening and that your not talking about the things you should be.

You're worried about this Tamil people issue (don't take that as criticism)
But soon they're won't be any nations;
- Or Christians.

Let me dig deeper into what I'm trying to say.

Can you grasp the idea of trying to obscure a target?
This is going to be a really bad hypothetical but I can't think of a different example, sorry:

Say you were a spy agency and you wanted to kill one person but you didn't want to make it look like they were the target so you stage a mass shooting event and kill 50 just to obscure the one target you really wanted gone.
Can you grasp the idea of obscuring the target?

[Cont]
Well, in all this PC and hate speech liberal agenda happening globally;
(I often talk about it generally being about bringing forward a global government agenda)
I think the agenda is SPECIFICALLY engineered in a way that obscures the real target;
- And the real target is you Christians.

The racism agenda has provided them specifically free movement in other nations.
The freedom of religion agenda allows them to congregate and bring forward their 'religious' plans in other nations.
And this hate speech agenda stops Christians from saying that they must repent;
Or essentially that the New Testament superseded the old.

For 2000 years Talmudic Rabbis have been pissed that Christianity made their religious rule obsolute.
And they've been trying to rectify this issue ever since, they're getting real close;
Quietly moving the chess pieces in the background with a smile of their face,
Hiding in plain sight behind big business, monetary policy, and social organisations.

If you think I'm wrong, then tell me about this:

You're all wondering why there is this persecution of Christians, but you don't understand who your enemy is.

50 years ago, did the Catholic church oppose the establishment of the state of Israel, and oppose Zionism?
And now, 50 years later, Jews have written a new version of your bible which they say is not Anti-Semitic.
Obviously there's going to be a few changes, that put you back under the thumb of the 'old ways'.
(You see the agendas real purpose now?)

I encourage you to watch read these and get back to me afterwards.

Watch / read these for some background:
The Jerusalem Conspiracy
http://youtu.be/syUSQEUpTTQ
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/118979/sanhedrin-nikki-haley-president/

Now watch what I watched on Saturday night.

Pressure to Move Hague to Jerusalem
http://youtu.be/PwZ6dbTlcdU

Kabbalah Rabbis Present Christians with a New Gospel
http://youtu.be/cNz_gZV8HyA

Your Father is the Devil: Zionist Jews Demand Censorship of New Testament Holy Bible
http://youtu.be/0Kj1yyxQP54

(You'll have to skip forward through the news 20 mins or so to get to the discussion of the above topic)

Armchair Critic,

<<Then I believe that Christians are walking themselves off a cliff, and they're going to take everyone with them; EVERYONE>>

You haven't provided substantial evidence to support your theory. The truth is that this is where genuine, born again are going and those who repent and seek God's forgiveness go: 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him' (John 3:16-17).

Instead of taking everyone over the cliff, we invite people to seek God's answer to the individual and national sin problem by repenting. Jesus' explanation was: 'The thief [not the Christian] comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I [Jesus Christ] have come that they may have life, and have it to the full' (John 10:10).

'Over the cliff' is replaced by eternal salvation

<<Can I ask you do you know how badly your religion is under attack right now?>>

I don't live in a cocoon. The Christian faith has been under attack since the first century. I currently support Christian ministries that serve persecuted Christians in overseas countries.

Jesus warned: 'Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also (John 15:20).

(continued)

(continued)

Armchair Critic:

<<You're all wondering why there is this persecution of Christians, but you don't understand who your enemy is.>>

Lucifer takes many people captive through (1) False teaching in the church (1 Timothy 4:1), and (2) Externally through persecution.

<<But soon they're won't be any nations; - Or Christians.>>

You got that one wrong AC. Jesus told the truth: 'And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it' (Matthew 16:18). The church will NEVER be obliterated out of existence on this earth until Jesus’ returns.

Your 2 posts were dominated by your conspiracy theories. But you want to relegate Peter Bowden and me to being <completely clueless as to whats (sic) going on.>> I can't speak for Peter but after 55 years of study as a Christian I understand much (not all) of what is going on and it looks nothing like your theories.

You would do well Armchair to read God's Word (the bible) instead of your numerous anti semitic conspiracy theory sources.

Hey Ozspen; and runner,

"You haven't provided substantial evidence to support your theory."

Not, not really but that would depend on the parts in contention.
Obviously I'm delving into a complicated topic, going off-topic as well, and with my continued mention of this issue on the forum I feel I'm bordering of bringing the forum into disrepute considering the political climate that labels every sensitive discussion of this nature racist or hate speech.

- And on that note I should state my primary issue is about 'ideas I disagree with', and not necessarily 'the people associated with those ideas'.
Regarding said 'ideas' I'm opposed to the global governace agendas and the destruction of national soverignty.
Why? Because I don't like the single basic idea that my country should ever by ruled by anyone other than Australians themselves.
That's my issue.

The 'people associated with said ideas','New world Order' is a secondary issue that I have absolutely no control over whatsoever.
So if anyone suggests I'm out to deliberately discriminate against others or incite hatred or resentment of anybody, that's most certainly not the case.

I believe in ethics 'Everyone has the right to live however they choose so long as it does not affect others in an adverse manner';

That means that if others are doing things which affect me in an adverse manner I feel I have a right (a duty even) to speak up about it;
At the same time it also means that if I bring this forum into disrepute and that has a negative impact on others, then that goes against what I believe in and stand for as well.
18D says my speech is (supposed) to be exempt from 18C if it's an extension of my true beliefs.
It's a real fine line to discuss this topic and I try to find a balance, and I know I'm on thin ice.
Also with recent laws in many countries preventing this discussion, I feel as though my time is potentially limited to do so.

[Cont.]

I'm glad you quoted Jesus.
You quoted him as saying 'they'.

I won't consider myself so much of a conspiracy theorist now when I say 'they' as much as I 'll feel like someone being persecuted instead, right?
Unless you think Jesus was a conspiracy theorist?

Who was he talking about when he said they?
Who condemned him?
Was it not the Sanhedrin?

Members of Reestablished Sanhedrin Ascend Temple Mount
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/73311

The Sanhedrin’s peace initiative
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3394231,00.html
"Prof Hillel Weiss of the Sanhedrin explained that the Torah and the prophets have tasked the Jewish people with the responsibility for world peace."

Sanhedrin Invites Nikki Haley to be Honorary President of Organization of 70 Nations
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/118979/sanhedrin-nikki-haley-president/
"In the Organization of 70 Nations based on Mount Zion, every nation shall retain its language, culture, and traditions. Each nation shall retain its sovereignty in its place without any threat from roaming bands of refugees."
"Each nation shall be solely responsible for maintaining a fitting and proper justice system as per the Seven Noahide Laws incumbent upon all of mankind."

The difference between Eretz Yisrael and the State of Israel
based upon letters written by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/245869

What is a fair minded person supposed to make of all this stuff?
And why is Nikki Haley, a Christian associated with helping rebuild the temple?
Why do you do that and support them if you know and believe the antichrist and armageddon will result?
Why? Because you care more about Jesus coming back than what's going to happen to this planet because of your ignorance.
It seems some of you are even willing to help the other team bring it sooner.

It seems pretty clear they're aspire to a global Jewish religious theocracy based on Noahide Laws.
Now before you go saying I'm the nut, who else has plans to rule over the planet?
And don't get the pox with me just because I quoted what someone else stated.

Thanks Runner,

Armchair Critic's antisemitism is an utter disgrace. From what I hear he has posted antisemitic comments for years. He is a paranoid antisemite.

It's not just me saying this stuff, other Christians are.
(Though it was my thought to question whether in all this PC, racism and hate speech agenda's the real target is to subjugate Christians)
And if you watched those links and saw what Ben Shapiro was saying you might understand why I said it.

Why don't we start with something simple?
Why don't you ever talk about that there seems to be a rift or opposing camps between Christians in relation to Zionism?
Obviously TruNews is a Christian based organisation, do you disagree with them?
http://www.trunews.com/about

Before either of you go casting the stone calling out and rubbishing my conspiracy theories;
You both consider bible scripture as fact right?
What about the Book of Enoch and the Nephilim?
Are the scriptures right or wrong about them?

"The truth is that this is where genuine, born again are going and those who repent and seek God's forgiveness go:"

Yeah and what happens after that; unless of course you're BANKING on every single human life on this planet being extinguished?
Either way you're willing to actually help try get Armageddon to happen first, and then hope your right about the Jesus part materialising so you can all check out gracefully?

Your supposed to be knowledgeable on facts Spencer;
Tell me did the Catholic Church originally oppose the establishment of the State of Israel?
And if so why did they oppose it and with what Pope did they change their stance?

You might all be lovestuck with the idea that Jesus will come back in your time, but I'm not keen on Armageddon.
- Nor am I keen on you lot advancing any agenda that helps make it happen.

If you truly cared about humankind like you pretend to you'd be demonstrating it by asking the questions yourself.
Not ignoring and dismissing them.

They say bad things happen when good people do nothing.
Well for me this just demonstrates they weren't actually good people at all.

And why attack me?
Is it not your bible that's now being labelled anti-semitic and hate speech?

Armchair Critic,

<<What about the Book of Enoch and the Nephilim?
Are the scriptures right or wrong about them?>>

Is the Book of Enoch in Scripture? See: http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM

Armchair Critic,

<<Emphasis: AS long as it does not have 'negative or detrimental impact' to others.>>

Who decides what is 'negative or detrimental' and its impact on others? What is the standard you use?

Australia has signed the United Nations Childrens' Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Two of its articles state:

"All organisations concerned with children should work towards what is best for each child" (Art. 3).

"Children who come into a country as refugees should have the same rights as children who are born in that country" (Art. 22), http://www.unicef.org.au/Upload/UNICEF/Media/Our%20work/childfriendlycrc.pdf

These two daughters, Kopika, 4, and Tharunicaa, 2, have been and are being traumatised in detention centres, Melbourne and now Christmas Island. These children, born in Australia, are refugees who ought to have the same rights as Australian children. They are not getting that from the Dept of Immigration. A little girl sobbing her heart out on her father's chest (as seen on TV) should never happen in a civilised country that is a signatory to UNICEF. See: http://www.unicef.org.au/our-work/unicef-in-australia

Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on 17 December 1990, http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/childrens-rights/publications/un-childrens-convention-and-australia-1991

Now it's time to practice what the Convention preaches and "take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members" (Art. 2.2), http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.

Hey OzSpen,
When I asked you about the nephilim it was a rhetorical response to yours (and runners) emphasising my 'conspiracy theories'.

I wanted you to either say you believe reptilians existed;
(Which would probably make you be a conspiracy theorist too)
Or that you disagree with with that particular religious text.
- You dodged it but I won't hold it against you -

The religious version is 'He who is without sin shall cast the first stone';
The non religious version - 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'
I was just returning your serve, kind of like tennis.

I personally don't know and don't really have an opinion on whether they existed or not.
I've never really bothered to look into it.

Re: Catholic Churchs (Christians) opposition to the establishment of the State of Israel and Zionism.
Found some info here: http://jcpa.org/the-vaticans-path-toward-official-recognition-of-israel/

"Pius X appealed to religious doctrine to deal with the nationalist yearnings of the Jews. The Pope gave a theological answer to a political proposition, thus closing all possibility of a meeting of minds. The Jews had not recognized Jesus Christ, the Pope told Theodor Herzl, ergo the Church could not recognize the Jews."

- So that's that.

"Who decides what is 'negative or detrimental' and its impact on others? What is the standard you use?"
I'll address these concerns (as well as others) later when my post limit allows me to.

Armchair Critic,

<<When I asked you about the nephilim it was a rhetorical response to yours (and runners) emphasising my 'conspiracy theories'.

I wanted you to either say you believe reptilians existed;
(Which would probably make you be a conspiracy theorist too)
Or that you disagree with with that particular religious text.
- You dodged it but I won't hold it against you ->>

I dodged nothing. I did not reply because, (1) Your response had nothing to do with the topic of my essay. Therefore, (2) It was a Red Herring Logical Fallacy, which is fallacious reasoning, http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring.

We can't have a reasonable conversation when you resort to this kind of erroneous reasoning.

GodsGrace,

<<We know that even atheists are moral persons...there's no need to be a Christian to do what is right...we all know what is right.>>

Do you think it's possible to and do good without God? Does Australia need to promote subjective morality, i.e. everyone doing what is right and good in his/her own eyes? See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gVpUxT-9H4

Will secular goodness keep Australia free and bring the greatest justice to Australia?

<<I believe that if they've been absorbed into the community and are raising their family in a normal and loving way,,,they should not be put through anymore heartache.>>

I agree 100%. This Tamil family has integrated well into a small regional community of 5,000 people and Nades, the father, has found employment in the local meat works. They are a credit to Biloela and should be returned there.

Oh Spencer...

"I dodged nothing. I did not reply because (1) Your response had nothing to do with the topic of my essay...

You did reply actually, firstly when you added a link;
- It was ok to reply the first time I'm confused please explain?

And then you replied again to tell me why you didn't dodge the question when you did dodge the question.

The reason you dodged the question the second time (you did reply the first time) was because even though the book of Enoch isn't accepted as scripture, Christians still believe its true, and there are references to Nephilim in the bible, only the bible refers to them as giants.
I'm sure you believe Genesis is true don't you?

You avoided the question because admitting that you believe the Nephilim existed would've given merit to my argument that you were being hypocritical calling me a conspiracy theorist and you didn't want me making you look stupid when I threw a quote from Jesus back at you.

You know you lied and dodged the question.
And then you used some squirmy excuse to try and deflect with a logical fallacy excuse;
- that itself was a logical fallacy

- And then attack me with a straw man argument.

In other news...
Israel illegally attacked 4 nations overnight;
But you probably wont hear that on your news...

Sorry I haven't responded to your earlier questions about the Tamil couple btw, I've been quite busy with some other things that have to take priority and I've had to put off responding, but I will tomorrow.

Hey OzSpen,
"Who decides what is 'negative or detrimental' and its impact on others? What is the standard you use?"
I'll adress these concerns (as well as others) later when my post limit allows me to.

I'll go with your standard, 'Do unto others', or the non-religious version 'Treat others the way you'd like to be treated'.
But there's an clause: you HAVE to also consider and 'The bigger picture', or 'The greater good'.
Once you take that in, you'll realise there's a reason why they HAVE to go.

If letting them stay leads to a political or legal path that results in more boats coming and potentially more men women and kids drowning, then that goes against the greater good, and therefore is NOT the right path.

ScoMo says he 'can't in good conscience'.
- And I agree with him.

Say I jump the fence at the Ekka and get busted.
I've got to be escoted out, then go back in the proper way through the turnstiles - and then I'm allowed in.
That's just the way it has to be.

Re the kids: Your making the argument that removing them and having them go through this is having a negative or detrimental impact on them, and I'll agree with that. I'm sure it is but you've got to look at 'The Bigger Picture'. Better their suffering than 50 men women and kids drowning.

Can't you understand that?

[Cont.]
My early childhood was growing up in a caravan park when my parents first came up to QLD.
Say I got lost in the park and someone in a nice mobile home found me wandering around and took me in.
That doesn't mean I'm now entitled to an upgrade and live in the nice mobile home van with a built-in toilet permanently because sending me back to our piece of crap franklin caravan with the busted leaking annex might have a negative or detrimental effect on my life, now that I know what the good life is.

I said earlier, I accept their refugee status from Sri-Lanka to India.
I don't accept their refugee status from India to Australia, I think they were migrants, and that means they entered illegally.
You've got to go back out and then come back in through the turnstiles the right way.

If you want to support the 'right' position, then that would be that India should have some provision themselves for refugees;
In which case they wouldn't have had to risked their lives making the trip here in the first place.

In regards to other cases or exceptions you mentioned.
These temporary protection orders don't automatically entitle someone to permanent residency.
And why should they if the situation in their home country stabilises?
- I told you I believe in the ethics of fairness, that means what you do for one you do for the other.
First find the position that's ethically right, and then treat everyone fairly and equally on a basis of merit under that system.

I'm happy for these people to stay if the local community wants and supports them.
But they've got to out and come back in properly.

Hey SF,

"Armchair Critic's antisemitism is an utter disgrace. From what I hear he has posted antisemitic comments for years. He is a paranoid antisemite."

Who decides what an anti-semite is?
- Semites (with the approval of those who support the PC agenda)

This in itself is the same flawed argument I raised attention to in my first comment on this thread, about Spencers use of an immigrant to support the immigrant point of view.

Let's look at the Bigger Picture there.

Is use of this 'anti-xxxx (nationality example)' distributed on an equitable basis?
Do New Zealander's run around screaming you cant say that it's anti-kiwi?
Do Mexicans run around screaming you're anti-mexican?
Does ANY other race do this or is is a privilege reserved only for them?
Is this not an example of Jewish exceptionalism?
And if so where else do we see that?

'God's chosen people'.

The have the Noahide laws (previously mentioned) where one of them is that you cannot criticise the religious authority?

And so, is it not fair to question whether the use of the word anti-semite constitutes a theocratic position being imposed upon me?

This is not Israel or a religious theocracy, this is Australia.
Where my right to think for myself and question things is supposed to be protected.

Maybe you think the 'holocaust' is a reason why they have this privilege?

But lets think about that example.
The word Nazi is used freely enough as a term to denigrate there's plenty of examples of this, but no-one suggests that it's used because of an unrelenting hatred for German people.
It's freely accepted then that it's about 'the idea' not about 'the people' associated with said idea, as I tried to explain earlier.

- Though it's a little more complicated than the Nazis, when the idea is part of the religion.

But I want to be clear.
I do NOT wish any Jewish people any harm in any way.

Do you all actually get that Israel BOMBED 4 different countries in under 24hrs?
Who gets away with that?

Israel Bombs Syria & Iraq After Alleged Rocket & Israel Caught Violating Lebanese Airspace, Again
http://youtu.be/yYERhfKwvPc

Armchair Critic,

<<If letting them stay leads to a political or legal path that results in more boats coming and potentially more men women and kids drowning, then that goes against the greater good, and therefore is NOT the right path.

ScoMo says he 'can't in good conscience'.
- And I agree with him.>>

It's time ScoMo and the govt. practised their obligations to UN International Law for asylum seekers. I stick by that approach to the Tamil family. Where's the evidence that keeping them here will lead to more illegal boat arrivals? Aust has enough legislation in place to stop that.

If it's OK for Peter Dutton to make an exception for the 2 European nannies, he can do it with the Tamil family and return them to Biloela.

In November 2015, Lisa Millar reported for ABC News Brisbane, Qld:

"Australia's asylum seeker policies have been heavily criticised at a session of the UN's leading human rights body in Geneva.
Key points

Australia's asylum seeker policies heavily criticised at UN human rights review
Concerns raised about detention of asylum seekers on Christmas Island, Manus Island and Nauru
Australia's delegation says border policies have saved lives at sea
Expert says Australia is a "pariah" on human rights issues

"More than 100 countries spoke during the three-hour session, with many calling on Australia to abide by international law.

"Australia's border control policies, which have seen asylum seekers — including children — detained on Christmas Island, Manus Island and Nauru were a key point of contention.

"The criticism came amid unrest on Christmas Island following the death of an asylum seeker who tried to escape the immigration detention centre.

"This is the second time Australia has faced a periodic review by the Human Rights Council, which looks at every country's record once every four years".

Countries at the UN that spoke against Australia's treatment of asylum seekers included the United States, Great Britain and Canada.

"Sweden's delegate told the session that Australia was the only country in the world that used offshore processing and mandatory detention of asylum seekers", http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-10/australias-asylum-policies-heavily-criticised-at-united-nations/6926032

Hey Armchair critic....
I'd like to answer your post....but I can't understand HOW.
this is not an easy site to navigate.

IF you see this,,,I'll reply to your comment.

GodsGrace

GodsGrace,

What a lovely pen name you have, especially on a secular forum like this.Welcome!

The current Minister for Education and Minister for Industrial Relations in Queensland is The Honourable Grace Grace MP. She has a double dose of grace in her name.

I wonder if she knows that grace is a central concept to the Bible, Christianity and the world. It expresses God's promises given in Scripture and is seen in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Jerry Bridges wrote: '[Grace] is God reaching downward to people who are in rebellion against Him'.

'Grace is the opposite of karma, which is all about getting what you deserve. Grace is getting what you don’t deserve' (Justin Holcomb).

<<Hey Armchair critic.... I'd like to answer your post....but I can't understand HOW. this is not an easy site to navigate.>>

I agree that it's not as easy a forum to navigate around as on others I've used.

However, if you can find your own post here, on that page is an icon on top and bottom, 'New Post'. Click on that and away you go with posting to whomever. For me, I normally compose in email and then copy and paste to OLO.

I trust you'll enjoy your time with us.

Dear Spencer,

God's Grace is always welcome.

Grace comes in many forms, it is all about us, it comes in the form of sun rising, it comes in the form of water quenching thirst and the food that we eat, it comes in the laws of physics that keep the world together and it also comes in the form of the law of karma to set us back on the path by giving us both pleasure and pain in accordance with our deeds, to comfort us that we are not forgotten in a world of inconsequential chaos - "thy rod and thy staff they comfort me”, both!

In our fallen state, we identify with the undeserving, a body of flesh along a frail and unstable mind. That human which we identify with is indeed undeserving, but in our true essence there is nothing we do not deserve. God's final grace, beyond deservance, is to wake us from this nightmare of identification with the limited, to know our true glorious and infinite nature.

Yuyutsu,

You stated grace <<also comes in the form of the law of karma to set us back on the path by giving us both pleasure and pain in accordance with our deeds. >>

You statement agrees with what I confirmed about Karma (see above): ''Grace is the opposite of karma, which is all about getting what you deserve. Grace is getting what you don’t deserve' (Justin Holcomb).

Thanks for agreeing that Karma is the opposite of God's grace.

<<God's final grace, beyond deservance (sic), is to wake us from this nightmare of identification with the limited, to know our true glorious and infinite nature.>>

I do not support that view as it's not in harmony with biblical teaching which states: 'For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people' (Titus 2:11).

God's grace extends to the undeserving, offering eternal salvation to them all. Many reject such an offer.

Hey OzSpen;
"It's time ScoMo and the govt. practised their obligations to UN International Law for asylum seekers. I stick by that approach to the Tamil family. Where's the evidence that keeping them here will lead to more illegal boat arrivals? Aust has enough legislation in place to stop that."

Firstly, 'keeping them here', should've been 'allow them to stay';
But since they're no longer on mainland Australia, your position would now be in support of 'allowing them to come back' (from Christmas Island).

Do you believe ScoMo has a conscience?
And if so what do you think weighed on it in making his decision?

I get where you're coming from;
It doesn't seem like such a big deal, to let them stay.
It almost seems like more of an expense and an effort to remove them right?

- But what you don't seem to realise is that it's YOU helping to set a new precedent;
That people who arrive by boat can find a legal avenue with which the governments hands are tied to remove them.

And once that happens, you can bet there will be more boats, and you can bet that more people are going to die.
And you would've helped make it happen.

You talk about 'everyone doing what's right in their eyes', isn't that EXACTLY the position you're supporting here?

Let me ask you, if you knew that letting them stay would mean that more people were certain to die, would you still let them stay?

Are you willing to take the chance?
And are you willing to allow legislation to be built around this knowing the governments hands would be tied in future situations once you set this precedent?

The part where we seem to disagree is on the matter of their refugee status.
As I said previously, I'm not convinced they were refugees on their voyage from India to Australia, but I accept that they were when they left Sri Lanka.

I'm not sure the UN recognises a right to skip so many other nations to go to the place of your preference.

Armchair Critic,

<<Do you believe ScoMo has a conscience? And if so what do you think weighed on it in making his decision?>>

That's an Argument from Silence Logical Fallacy. It's fallacious reasoning.

<<It doesn't seem like such a big deal, to let them stay. It almost seems like more of an expense and an effort to remove them right? - But what you don't seem to realise is that it's YOU helping to set a new precedent>>

Not so, mate! The govt has already set the precedent by changing the visa status of the 2 au pairs.

<<Let me ask you, if you knew that letting them stay would mean that more people were certain to die, would you still let them stay?>>

There you go again with another Argument from Silence Logical Fallacy. We can't have a reasonable conversation when you engage in this kind of illogical behaviour.

Shaun Hanns is a former officer of the Department of Home Affairs and was a case officer in that Dept. He left the Dept. so he could speak out about what was happening inside it in regard to processing asylum seeker claims. I recommend you read his article. In it he stated:

"[There are] two myths deeply held in the department that are rarely challenged and, for most, difficult to see beyond.

"The first myth in which we are trapped maintains that any kindness, any whatsoever, will restart the industry. The second is that people smugglers are capable of sending large numbers of boats to Australia at short notice, enough to overwhelm any possible solution. Although from an organisational point of view the latter may be true, it grossly overestimates the ability of people smugglers to convince people to attempt the trip. They are both myths born of the experiences of 2012 and 2013, when the people-smuggling business was running red-hot. See: http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2018/november/1540990800/shaun-hanns/i-left-immigration-department-speak-out

[Cont.]

Regards Peter Dutton's decision, did the 2 European nannies come by boat?
I said I support treating everyone equally, but 'under a basis of merit', and that's an issue that holds merit.
That said however, I'm not sure the 2 decisions alongside each other amount to 'What you do for one, you do for the other'.

Regards the key points UN rights review:
Honestly, I don't give a crap what they say.
It's reverse democracy.

Does democracy mean we decide?
- Or does it mean the UN and other global overseers decide for us?
Their 'democracy' means we citizens don't really have any, because everything's already pre-decided.

I support the offshore processing, but I don't in any way support that they be given inhumane treatment or substandard living conditions.

"Countries at the UN that spoke against Australia's treatment of asylum seekers included the United States, Great Britain and Canada."

Lol.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/06/30/us-government-tops-all-for-creating-refugees/

"This new report from the United Nations documents Statistica’s headline, and it proves that America’s regime-change operations have actually created around half of the world’s refugees. It proves that America’s penchant for invading and trying to overthrow the governments that its billionaires want to replace (“regime-change”) has been by far the biggest of all single causes of refugees worldwide, vastly higher than any other government."

Hmmm... first it started with using an immigrant to lecture us on an immigrant related issue; Then Jewish people deciding on what is or isn't anti-Jewish and how we can't do this or that because it might offend them, in OUR country, and now we've got America and the so-called coalition of 'good' complaining about how we treat asylum seekers when they create most of them...

Spencer you've really got to start learning to look at the bigger picture.

Earlier I defended myself in regards to SR's comment.

Now whilst I'm not saying I was wrong in the 'points of merit' I raised to defend my right to speak freely and question things;
I was wrong in not first owning what I'd said that gave him cause to criticise my comments in the first place.

I did cross a line I'd not normally cross.
I shouldn't have said Jews were 'hiding in plain sight' under an implied global Jewish conspiracy;
- Because I genuinely do not wish to inadvertantly promote any kind of resentment or ill-will towards individuals.

But do you think James Warburg was kidding;
When on 2 February 1950 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations he said,
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

Do you think it was all just 'jokes'?

- All that would really be needed to do is for elites to set and promote a liberal global agenda and let that policy trickle down with the help of business;
And they may think they're doing a good thing and what is right.

But I disagree with the idea of world government.
Nations states are a system of checks and balances on anyone having too much power;
Or at least they're supposed to be.

- Before 'Nation States' were replaced with politically correct 'Immigration States'.

Dear Spencer,

A. Grace is the opposite of karma.
B. Karma is a form of grace.

What do you make of this logic?

Karma is but one universal law, just like gravity.
The common thing about them both is their deterministic nature.
Why can't God use determinism, among other ways, to manifest His grace?
One way to look at universal laws is as the angels of God.
Are God and His angels opposites?

«'For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people'»

Definitely, I agree, but why are you saying that this verse is inharmonious with my view?

«God's grace extends to the undeserving, offering eternal salvation to them all. Many reject such an offer.»

Yes, God's grace extends to everyone, offering eternal salvation to all. Our difference seems to be regarding just whether or not we are deserving: People as such, I agree, are undeserving sinners, but in reality we are not people, we only deeply (but mistakenly) believe ourselves to be such, thus undeserving. And yes, we mostly reject the offer, for the time-being at least, denying our divinity and instead continuing to insist that we are just people.

---

Dear Critic,

«The part where we seem to disagree is on the matter of their refugee status.»

Why should anyone care whether or not they conform to the formal status of "refugees"?
The point is, that you should never treat people this way, regardless!

«And if so what do you think weighed on it in making his decision?»

Wanting to show us "who is the boss".
Despite all rhetoric, this attitude is not really directed against boat people and their traffickers, but against the Australian people, especially of Biloela. He is eager to demonstrate to them that they are not in control of their own life, but rather that he is.

«"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it.»

This will happen if we continue to reproduce like rabbits.
We already suffer national governments and it's not getting any better: the more people there are, necessarily the less each is valued.

Yuyutsu,

<<Karma is but one universal law, just like gravity.
The common thing about them both is their deterministic nature.
Why can't God use determinism, among other ways, to manifest His grace?
One way to look at universal laws is as the angels of God.
Are God and His angels opposites?>>

Your attempt to amalgamate your Hinduism and Christianity gets you into this befuddled mess.

Karma is NOT a universal law. It's a creation of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and Sikhism: 'Karma is the Hindu view of causality in which good deeds, words, thoughts, and commands lead to beneficial effects for a person, and bad deeds, words, thoughts, and commands lead to harmful effects. These effects are not necessarily immediate', http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/karma-hinduism

There is NOTHING deterministic about God's grace. It is God's unmerited, unconditional favour, love and mercy for the wicked of humanity. That's all of us. His grace that offers salvation is through submission to Jesus Christ. People can reject God's grace, so it's not irresistible (Matthew 23:37).

You got that example very wrong. God is an uncreated being who has and will always exist (Ex 3:14; Isa. 40:28). The name for God, Yahweh, occurs 6,800 times in the Old Testament. It is understood the verbal form, hayah, indicates 'to be', which means 'the eternal One' or 'self-existing One'. God's existence is underived. Nobody made him. He always has been and always will be. He's the One who created this universe and keeps it running.

By contrast, angels are created beings. The time when they were created is not stated in Scripture but this verse gives an indicator: 'For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him' (Colossians 1:16).

Let's get back on track with the content of my article, i.e. Scott Morrison's biblical responsibility to care for the outcasts, the Tamil family.

Dear Spencer,

I write about facts, how things are: whether Christianity agrees with it or not is none of my business. God's grace is a fact - we could not live for one moment without it.

I wonder why you limit God's grace only to the exceptions, the miracles, but not to the deterministic laws of the universe created by Him. If you do not believe in the law of karma, then how about the laws of gravitation, thermodynamics and the speed of light? these too are not mentioned explicitly in the bible, but are they not from God?

Regarding this poor Tamil family, we already said all we could, all that is left is to pray for them. Morrison, despite all that he may privately like to do as a Christian, cannot find the courage to help them because that could be seen as a sign of weakness, that he is not in control and that his word is not a word.

Hey Spencer,
I've got a challenge for you.
- What happened in 1666?

I'm not sure whats happened to GodsGrace btw,
I thought she was going to say something maybe in response to a prior comment
Sometimes its difficult to find the right words and you get scared it'll come out wrong, and then you just move on
- Well that happens to me sometimes anyway.

AC,

<<Hey Spencer,I've got a challenge for you.- What happened in 1666?>>

That has nothing to do with the topic of my essay so it's a red herring logical fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring

You attempted to redirect the argument to another issue about 1666 to which you think you can respond in a better manner. It was your deliberate attempt of abandoning the argument of my article.

It uses the fallacious reasoning of a red herring.

Bye! Bye!