Yvonne
Actually it was Fellow Human who first mentioned Nobel Prizes in this discussion.
I suppose Nobel Prize winning is not necessarily a sign of intelligence, but it could be a sign that present-day Muslim fatalism, religious and social attitudes are harmful to the development of science.
After all, one would expect that 1.3 billion Muslims in the world (as they so tirelessly keep reminding us) being something over 20% of the world's population, would be somewhat better represented in the ranks of Nobel Prize winners.
I don't think FH's statement is correct, as you can easily check for yourself.

As an atheist I find it difficult to care much about what Pell says or doesn't say. However, rightly or wrongly, he is expressing the position of his church, which he has every right to do as its representative. How is that blackmail? No one is putting a gun to their head, after all. As someone who was raised Catholic, I find it difficult to see where he has erred in terms of church doctrine. Of course, all religions are struggling to keep up with the pace of scientific research so lines are blurred.

The question of course, for Catholic MPs (and other Catholics for that matter) is: if I don't believe what my leadership believes, if I think divorce should be permissible, that sex outside marriage is not a mortal sin, that homosexuals have a right to express themselves sexually and not feel guilty about it and that we should feel free to use embryos for research - then why am I a member of Pell's club and why do I label myself Catholic? When your views on morality start to bear little resemblance to those of the church, surely it is time to start assessing your affiliations.

sajo, "I would like to assume that any elected member of parliament is able to make decisions in the best interest of their electorate which will of course include many with differing religious views than themselves." - any who cannot do so should stand aside due to the conflict of interest involved.

The recent comments by bishops in mexico followed by an endorsement from the current pope should be of concern to all democracies with catholics in positions of power.

The catholic church has issued a clear and direct threat against the wellbeing of catholic politicians who do not toe the church line on what they call life issues (abortion). Whist the threat is imaginary one would have to assume that many catholics would see it as something much more serious.

Does Hillali (or his overseas superior) claim to represent Allah on earth? Do muslims regard the words of a mufti as being those of the prophet? Do muslims consider their salvation forfeit if they choose to act according to their conscience rather than by the dictates of the Hillali's of the world?

My guess is that catholics who take their faith seriously would face some very deep personal conflicts in choosing to publicly act against the expressed dictates of the pope and his subordinates.

R0bert

Oliver, you are concerned about the New Guinea Highlander and his/her access to the benefits of Atonement.

Notice I originally said the arrangement is on offer for as long as one is capable of responding. Paul (somewhere in his letters) refers to the significance of conscience for those who are situated like your Highlander. I believe that we are all given an opportunity to decide – for or against Christ. At some point. It may not even be while alive.

I don’t think the world can be counted on to provide this opportunity for everyone naturally, and I don’t think the Christian Church can be counted on to engineer it. Therefore, I don’t think God is really counting on these circumstances.

Rather, I believe God finds His own way to give everyone the choice - an informed choice. And we are then given what we choose. We can choose Christ (and subscribe to the Atonement) or not. Our choice will be respected (which sounds nice, but is actually quite hazardous).

Incidentally, I also believe Jesus came to show us how to live, not just to “Atone”.

I think I understand some of your reservations about the Father/Son nomenclature. As I’m sure you’re aware, we are limited to metaphor when talking about God. Besides, we Christians go with the best clues we have, and we believe Jesus referred to “the Father” and recommended that we do likewise. Comparing this language with that of the other big monotheisms, I'd say this is what God looks like up close, and the Christians say God has come close enough to be seen in this way. (I know you're not buying. I didn't miss "false" in your post. My aim here is to elucidate, not prevail.)

Pax,

Well the new Mufti of Aust has stated that Skeik Hilali has been taken out of context and misunderstood.Which part of uncovered meat that deserved to be raped by Islamic men did we not understand?

Even Irfan tries to defend Sheik Hilali by trying to give him level pegging with George Pell.Islam is just a total farce.

Yvonne,

Thanks for your comment. I am staying and contributing :)

Froggie,
"Actually it was Fellow Human who first mentioned Nobel Prizes in this discussion"
I am afraid this is not correct, I commented responding to Stephany's comment few posts above my comment (as you can verify).
Apart from my personal opinions, happy to be corrected if any of my comments were inaccurate.

Peace,