Quote Irfan Usef,"Far right lunatics like Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali,holding up scions of human rights." Well which is it Irfan?In one breath you say Hirsi Ali shows courage and is to be respected and in the next,she is a far right lunatic.

I think Irfan is finding a conflict of faith and logic.The reality I discovered long ago Irfan,is that religion is no substitute for logical thought.It is our own vanity that makes us cling to religion since we think that we are eternally important.The reality is some what different.We are all expendable and death is the great social leveller.

Your self described, "armchair nazis" await new insights into your new altered psyche.

Sudanese Refugee,
You should contact the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It’s part of the Department of Justice in the Victorian Government. They will take your complaint seriously. Go to –

http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/Home.asp

stevenlmeyer, you say -

"Pell is not dictating the law. He is not threatening anybody with death. He is simply saying that if certain members of parliament are no longer able to agree with core teachings of his church they may not participate in some of his church's rituals. The affected members of parliament are free to ignore Pell if they choose. Unlike Ayaan Hirsi Ali they need not fear death threats."

I think this distinction is correct, and so obvious that I'm not sure what to make of Irfan's failure to grasp it. Pell went too far, issuing threats, but he was talking to people for whom he has some responsibility, and over whom he has a kind of authority - unenforceable, of course - and I think they, if they are observant Catholics, would agree with this.

Pell is an occasional embarrassment, and this occasion makes me suspect that he's losing his grip a little, but he is no Hilaly. Hilaly loves to hate, and is out to do harm. Whether or not he is a typical Muslim .... time will tell.

Steven, as you present as an atheist, or at least not religious, it is very decent of you to point out the difference.

Pax,

Oliver, your question -

"God cannot forgive sin without Attonement. If so, It is not God." -

remains outstanding. Very hard to answer in a post. Note first, it is only "sin" that is forgiven.

Sin is a problem. Like wrongdoing and disobedience of one's kids: we parents like "the rules" (and ourselves) to be respected, but I suggest it is not our main focus. We are mainly interested to love, and in our kids' welfare and happiness. On the other hand, "welfare and happiness" probably include their learning a sense of responsibility.

I think God is called Father partly because He is in a similar fix. He seeks ways of being lenient without loss of a sense of responsibility. And He naturally would prefer to be loved and respected in return, rather than not (as happens often enough).

Reflex forgiveness would not teach responsibility, and would end up being permission rather than forgiveness. If wrongs were "forgiven" automatically, the sense of wrong, and then of right, would become meaningless.

Atonement is a means of ensuring that we escape with our lives - with our eternal prospects in excellent shape - but without us being able to pretend that it's a free lunch. So, while "off the hook", we are still motivated to live responsibly and ethically.

My own reaction, as a Christian, to this "arrangement" is very humble gratitude and a sense of relief. And, whether or not God the Father put the hard word on the Son, I'm very glad for my sake (but sad for His) that the Son was willing to stand in for me. As you are aware, the arrangement is on offer generally, and remains open for as long as you are capable of responding to it.

Pax,

Stephany,

In the Islamic faith god is not bound by location or time.
Have a read of Dr Maurice Bucaille book of Quran and science:
http://www.islam101.com/science/bucaille.html

Peace,

Both Pell and Halali have said sexist, racist and homophobic statements.

I am no defender of Pell.

Comparing Pell to Halali is just stupid. Halali does not have the same respect or position in the Islamic world as Pell does over the Catholic world.

Besides I have no sympathy for Halali after insulting our ancestors. I have a long memory. To say that Australians are just from convicts, therefore have less rights to our land than Islamic people is an insult to Australia in general.

For that insult, I think he deserved be deported. If he hates this country so much, he should leave.

My convict ancestor was a 12 year old boy who was wrongly accused of a crime which doesn't even exist any more. His harsh sentence was largely due to religious prejudice towards Quakers.

How can you judge our ancestors when most of their crimes we don't even recognise any more and they were just trumped up sentences.

Pell never went that far. He has never made an insulting remark towards Australian history.

Hilali was rightly forced to resign as he was so outrageously anti-Australian in his statements by just insulting the most vulnerable now, and in history.

Pell? Time for his medication. You know the Pope will never sack him, be real.

Sudanese Refugee.. go back to that bank, find the NAME of the person, and I'll RING her myself!

Quite a fertile discussion thread this one. Even see the Battle of Lepanto mentioned :) (everyone should google that)

Stephany.. great 2 c some creativity in posts:)

Sticky is in good form still I c

F.H. is in denial..whats new :)

Just one point. I'm not aware of Hilali actually 'telling' politicians how to vote.. did I miss it ?