Old Koreelah Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Regardless of if one is a pacifist etc or "right wing", the fact is land, food and water are running out relative to population expansion - there is a time coming that something has to give and it ain't going to be pretty. Ultimately I can't see how "Them or Us" can be avoided (some flexibilty as to who you see as "Them"). Interesting times ahead, Bex. The best investment Australia could be making right now is in building on what international goodwill we had. Being seen to do our bit to prevent future disasters. Instead, the world is rapidly coming to view us as rich, selfish and wasteful. If we continue to be rich we might get by, but we've pissed away much of our future by becoming far too dependent on the mining boom. As the number of environment refugees escalates, the world will insist we take them. We won't be able to stop them, and a big proportion will bring religious baggage that is totally incompatible with our way of life.
facthunter Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 The rate of population expansion is obviously akin to Plague proportions. Disease will correct it and the old method Killing each other. Making more and more food isn't the answer to the problem as supply lines and order easily break down and profiteering runs amok. People don't have the money to pay and it should be directed to self sufficiency, but there's no dough in that for the rest. Nev
Marty_d Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Religious leaders making sense. Wonders will never cease. http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2015/02/27/4187765.htm
nomadpete Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” - Oscar Wilde
Marty_d Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.”- Oscar Wilde "I think man, in creating god, seriously underestimated his own ability." - Marty d, today
facthunter Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I thought he created him in his own image. Nev
nomadpete Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I thought he created him in his own image. Nev I'm confused. Which one created which one in which image? Anyway, I read someplace that 'Clothes maketh the man'.
Marty_d Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I'm confused. Which one created which one in which image? Man created god. Unfortunately, he never updated him.
facthunter Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Your choice.. The good book says "God created Man in his own image". And woman was from one of the bones in his chest. (or perhaps god was only ribbing him) It could be the original bone of contention. Nev
Marty_d Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Your choice.. The good book says "God created Man in his own image". Nev Don't know why they call it a good book. I found it boring and the characters unbelievable.
facthunter Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 It is THE GOOD book The word of God. (The devils in the detail). Nev
PA. Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Got myself a personally signed copy. [ATTACH]47552._xfImport[/ATTACH]
Pearo Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 It is THE GOOD book The word of God. (The devils in the detail). Nev I am not sure why they call it the good book, when is full of such atrocities. Murder, pillageing, rape etc.
facthunter Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Maybe some one thought that was good. If you read it it is supposed to teach you the ways of virtue. I think one has to be selective there. Nev
Pearo Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Maybe some one thought that was good. If you read it it is supposed to teach you the ways of virtue. I think one has to be selective there. Nev Yup, just pick out the bits that suit you and ignore the rest, the proclaim to the world that teaches good morals. And if you choose the bad bits as well, your a fundamentalist nutbag apparently.
nomadpete Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 Either the Good Book is the word of god, or it is not. How can a lowly human presume to edit the word of god? Either god meant what he said (His Word/s) , in total, or he didn't. Any human who believes that they have the authority to edit the Word of god must be expecting the rest of us to believe that he (or she) is more powerful and more all-knowing than god. So, assuming the'Good Book' is the word of god (transcribed by humans of his choosing), I prefer not to align myself with such a bloodthirsty god. No offence intended to anybody's views, it's just a personal opinion. I'm happy to change my opinion if god informs me of his or her rationale.
Marty_d Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 Yup, just pick out the bits that suit you and ignore the rest, the proclaim to the world that teaches good morals. And if you choose the bad bits as well, your a fundamentalist nutbag apparently. Are you trying to say that if you go around killing homosexuals or kids who diss their parents, you're NOT a fundamentalist nutbag?
Pearo Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 Are you trying to say that if you go around killing homosexuals or kids who diss their parents, you're NOT a fundamentalist nutbag? Well killing homosexuals and kids who diss their parents are pretty far separated. But lets drop the kids part, and go with the killing homosexuals part. If you do that, you are probably a a bit deranged regardless, do it in the name of the 'good book' and you are a funadmentalist nutbag. But lest be honest here, there is plenty of offences in the bible that attract the death penalty, and some is pretty bad. Ie, I think its in Samual, the part about killing your son if your dad is a sinner. Geez, poor kid does nothing wrong but his dad get jeleous over a neighbor and bam, death row.
Marty_d Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 Yes, that's the point - a lot of it is deranged / ridiculous / unworkable / immoral / illegal. Probably the same with every other "good book". Which goes back to the fact that if it's supposed to be the word of god, he's a pretty nasty character, and if it's not, why follow it?
DonRamsay Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 A terrible situation there Bex. I have lots of sympathy for peoples like the Uighurs and any ethnic group who feels they and their culture are being swallowed by a huge neighbour. The different reactions of these threatened minorities tells us a lot about their culture and religion.Can we blame this violence on their brand of Islam (which doesn't seem to have been extreme)? Have Tibetans and other minorities resorted to violence? What would Australians do if placed in a similar situation? The Chinese have been very accomodating of the minorities, essentially non Han people. Although the Chinese Muslims copped a bit of flack during the Cultural Revolution, in the end they were protected by Chou En Lai. ouighas have been very violent for some time. This is the default for the "religion of peace" it would seem.
Marty_d Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 The Chinese have been very accomodating of the minorities, essentially non Han people. Although the Chinese Muslims copped a bit of flack during the Cultural Revolution, in the end they were protected by Chou En Lai. ouighas have been very violent for some time. This is the default for the "religion of peace" it would seem. Chou En Lai? Sounds like a good name for a restaurant with happy endings!
bexrbetter Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 A terrible situation there Bex. I have lots of sympathy for peoples like the Uighur and any ethnic group who feels they and their culture are being swallowed by a huge neighbour. The different reactions of these threatened minorities tells us a lot about their culture and religion. OK, I find this a bit bigotry, intended or not, and I don't blame you. The Han's history is clear, one of the clearest in fact for anyone who wishes to pursue it, as is many other cultures and the swinging of power throughout history. You guys just have to understand that it is fact that the Han bend over backwards for the minority groups here and it is nothing like what Western media portrays - I don't even understand why Western media portrays it, I don't understand what's in it for them? Not too sure who "them" is either. I live at the edge of a large number of Minorities including Tibetans, Yi and have been to their founding areas many times. The Han share Government with them and actively encourage their sub cultures and gives them shiteloads of money. If I had to explain it best to Australians, it is a situation like our Aboriginals where you get the fringe few who want more and more and 'please leave our lands you invaders' - and that's what the Western media grabs onto at every opportunity, but it isn't how it really is - you are being played. Can we blame this violence on their brand of Islam (which doesn't seem to have been extreme)? I'll see if I can dig up the police video of 105 innocent people getting slaughtered in the streets with knives, bats, bricks, rocks. Stand out is the young girl in her 20's who gets dragged out of her VW Golf by 5 guys and one of them bashes her skull in on the ground with a great big chunk of concrete. Yeah, but not extreme at all, like the 16 police stations bombed last year. Here's a current Western media example, It doesn't read; "Heroic Chinese Police foil Terrorist attempt!", Nope, it reads; "Two Uighur women killed by Chinese police!" - what a crock http://www.worldbulletin.net/todays-news/156568/two-uighur-women-killed-by-chinese-police-says-report You have to go down 7 paragraphs(!) to learn the women were knife yielding and presented in a way that it's a police lie. Who commonly reads that far anyway? Now you tell me that's not reporting with a bias. Have Tibetans and other minorities resorted to violence? What would Australians do if placed in a similar situation? I'm guessing the Tibetan violence doesn't get reported there? Figures, wouldn't really fit in with the big picture of "The Big Bad Chinese" would it. Tibetans are violent, aggressive people, and big and strong - again you have images of what the Western media portrays, who besides me here can claim to have walked around Tibetan towns at night and claim different? One of the few times I am ever concerned about my safety in China. What would Australians do if placed in a similar situation? Give money, allow their religion even if it goes against our morals, give them land and house, say sorry for any political incorrectness, make new laws specific so they don't have to obey ours, jail Jeremy Clarkson, have a National Day for them, exempt their children from our school's teachings, etc..
bexrbetter Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Chou En Lai? Sounds like a good name for a restaurant with happy endings! Every 2nd Friday night, table reserved!
DonRamsay Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 I was only in China 3 weeks but covered 8,500 kms. What I saw was the Han Chinese being proud of their minorities. The minorities get lots of concessions and are not bound by the one child policy in the same way as the Han people are. There is an attempt to have a universal language, Mandarin, for the whole country. This is not at the expense of local languages and dialects. Last count I heard was a slight majority speak Mandarin. If you understand that there are around 50 million members of the Communist Party and 1,250 million non members you get a picture of people getting on with life not rabid commos. Bex's comments on the Uighurs are very instructive and totally credible and consistent with the culture of those who follow the self described "Religion of Peace" around the world. I'm sure OldKorealah was like the rest of us, taken in by the anti communist USA media.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now