Separating the wheat from the chaff....

Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him, and the Secretary of State, and the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the western world feel they have to weigh in. . . .Steyn's anti-sentimentalizing is at its best here, not all as quotable in public as the above.
When someone destroys a bible, US government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.
So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for "respect" and "sensitivity" toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.
The more one reflects on the mystery of the trinity the farther one seems to move from any final understanding of it. What was closed opens up, what was once understood becomes unclear. Again and again one must begin anew. Consequently, the doctrine of the trinity remains unfinished. For those confronted by it, it is an unending process of learning and suffering. By the same token however, one cannot give it up, one is never free from it. For the theologian, an understanding of the trinity is the highest and certainly the most humbling task he faces. - Jurgen Multmann
Only with the doctrine of the trinity is the historical truth of the cross given theological illumination. - Norbert HoffmanGil notes that the reverse of Hoffman's thought is also true; with the help of Girard's anthropological prespective, the historical truth of Christ's crucifixion on the cross allows us to see the practical implications of the doctrine of the Trinity in a new and profound way.
just as the death of the sacred king, or the repetition of a sacred ritual was often accompanied by crisis so in the modern world the waning of the power of the sacred has precipitated a crisis