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'.