|Reviews for Truth Beneath the Rose|
| inwardtransience chapter 24 . 11/13/2014
[Babies and pregnant women who receive their flue [sic] shots are actually more likely to have that baby be autistic.]
Yeah, no, that's completely untrue. Thiomersal, the organic mercury compound supposedly responsible, was pulled from the vast majority of vaccines over a decade ago, that possibility among the reasons. However, in the years since, new cases of autism haven't gone down at all—and are in fact still increasing. The recent explosion of flu vaccination (many of which still contain the compound) hasn't caused a noticeable shift in the trend. There is ABSOLUTELY NO reputable scientific evidence that vaccination causes autism. None at all.
This myth is really annoying. Vaccination policies have demonstrably saved millions of lives. But these fears are making some people choose not to vaccinate their children. I personally do have Aspergers. Another Aspie friend of mine is absolutely convinced vaccinations caused his autism. No. It's not true. It's. Completely. False.
It is biologically impossible (or at the least, extraordinarily unlikely) for thiomersal to cause autism. Autism is caused by minor flaws in brain structure developed in-utero and in early life. Thiomersal metabolizes in the body to ethylmercury. Which interacts with body chemistry only very weakly, and does not bioaccumulate, flushed out of the system in under twenty days. And in the miniscule amounts it is present in vaccines— Yeah, not possible.
[It as well contains detergent, strains of flu viruses...]
THAT'S HOW VACCINES WORK. A collection of inactivate virus is injected into a person, the person's body learns to recognize that virus so they can properly fight it off if they are ever infected with live virus. That's the whole point.
[...it has been proven that if you received a vaccination 3 to 5 years you have a 10x greater chance at developing Alzheimer's...]
"A theory linking flu shots to a greatly increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease has been proposed by a U.S. doctor whose license was suspended by the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners. Several mainstream studies link flu shots and other vaccinations to a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease and overall better health."
[If you do get your flu shot, get lots of vitamin C into your system, it is highly effective in neutralizing the toxins of mercury.]
*does some quick research*
Yeah, I don't see any evidence of that. Besides, it doesn't make any sense chemically. The point of an anti-toxin is to introduce a substance that bonds to the toxin more effectively than does body chemistry. Vitamin C is a generic name for a group of acids—rather weak acids—and I don't see why it would form bonds with ethylmercury, at least not actively. So, no.
| inwardtransience chapter 22 . 11/13/2014
[As you will notice with homosexual couples, one is always the more masculine one and the other the more feminine one.]
No. That is completely untrue, a vicious stereotype. Most gay couples I have known don't have such an observable stratification in gender expression. Expecting one is an artifact of a heterocentrist view of romantic relationships.
Your views on homosexuality are ridiculous, and completely unsupported by modern science. Homosexual behavior has been observed in more than 1500 species, not just humans. The assertion that it is a "developmental" problem has been repeatedly squashed by prevailing psychological thought every time it has surfaced. The idea that someone can be "cured" with any sort of therapy is completely criminal—studies show "ex-gays" have a much higher rate of mental disorders and suicide, a threat to their health that mostly vanishes once they go back to their natural sexuality (some retain some symptoms similar to PTSD for years afterward).
Personally sex—both gay and straight—completely grosses me out (I've had both). Every time I have had sex is because my partner wanted it and I'm like, sure, whatever. Even the thought of having it makes me uncomfortable. I'm one of those crazy asexuals. So maybe I don't really get the whole sexuality thing. But I don't see what difference it makes which sex someone is with. And I certainly don't see how it's any business of yours.
| inwardtransience chapter 19 . 11/13/2014
[I remind you, I'm a woman. :) ]
Yes. You are a sexist woman. There have been and are many of those.
[And the Bible has the same standard for men...]
I notice that the passage you indicate is addressed to slaves, not men in general. That means you pretty much just equated the situation of the entire female gender with slavery. Good job.
| inwardtransience chapter 18 . 11/13/2014
Oooh, this article. Should be fun.
[Instead it promote female supremacy, matriarchy.]
Completely, and unequivocally, WRONG. The belief system you are referring to is an off shoot of second-wave feminism called radical feminism. At any point since its inception, it has only been supported by a very small percentage of active feminist philosophers and organizations. People have a bias to conflate an entire movement with the actions of a very small group of individuals, those whose actions have been the most controversial, the most visible. Most people I've talked to don't even know any of the distinctions between first, second, and third-wave feminism, can't name a single feminist philosopher (my favorite is Judith Butler). And hey, first-wave feminism gave you the right to vote, or divorce your husband if you so choose. The major political focus of second-wave feminism was the idea of equal pay for equal work (something we still don't have), but did do things like make domestic violence and marital rape illegal. I'm sure you wouldn't say any of those are bad things. I'm sure you would hate third-wave feminism, though, so.
American feminists tend to focus on Christianity in America because it is the dominant religious force—Islam is only a small minority. They could focus all their attention on the Muslim world, but allowing injustice in your own country erodes your moral authority. We must fix things here before we think of ourselves as any sort of world-wide moral crusader.
[..the un-existing wage gap...]
"The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.81, slightly higher than the 2008 ratio." Data from the US census. :P
[...complaining about rape culture after justifying dressing up like whores...]
Wow. I don't think I've ever actually heard a woman blame the victim before. I thought that was just something men did.
[Every girl has played house and played with babydoll...]
Calling bullshit. I didn't do this. I was always more interested in things like Legos growing up. Most of my girl friends didn't follow those stereotypes either.
[Why is it when a woman chooses to be a Housewife, she gets disrespected or at least less respect from the Feminist Movement than a working woman does?]
If the woman really did choose it—and wasn't pressured into it for social or economic reasons—and "feminists" still deride her, then they are not truly feminists. The entire point of certain ideals of feminism is the freedom of a woman to choose. And even the radical feminists should not be disrespecting the woman herself, but the society that forced her into that position. They are completely missing the point of their own movement.
[And I support for us to have all these rights, some women get a abandoned by an un-Godly man and need to support themselves...]
See, this is one of the things about sexism that really annoys me. The idea that women are primarily intended for a supporting role in society, that their entire purpose is to find a man and raise his kids, and blah blah blah. That working is only a last resort. That's ridiculous. I don't really plan on ever getting married, to a man or a woman (legal in my state xD). I suppose it could eventually happen someday, but it's not a priority. I do not need a romantic partner to complete my identity. I reject that entire philosophy. It's crap.
[Women are needed in this life and we have a duty to do in this life.]
So...what you're saying is the entire purpose of our existence is to make babies. Gotcha.
[...that is undeniable for the majority, it is just how we were made, men tend to be the stronger gender...]
Physically, yes. But women tend to be capable of withstanding more intense and longer periods of emotional duress. Brain scans also show that when a woman is listening to someone talk, or reading something, we use a larger portion of our brain than men do. Statistically, women are more frequently capable of correctly remembering something they have heard or read, picking important information out of a collection of mostly nonsense, identifying underlying themes in speeches or texts... In many of the basic skills that are necessary in modern society, women match or exceed the "stronger" sex.
[Men are the head and women are the body...]
[This Holy Book is obviously not sexist, but giving commands to both men and women...]
The fact that these commands differ between the sexes, and that men are put in a position of power over women, make it undeniably sexist. If you disagree, you don't know what "sexist" means.
This whole thing was absolutely disgusting. I cannot, will never understand why people feel someone should be denied certain rights, certain roles in society simply because of an accident of birth. It is abhorrent to me. Everything you have said in this supports everything in that first paragraph under your title FEMINISM. "...silenced women in the church..." Yep, you mentioned they should be. "...reduce them to no more than a Broodmare." You said women's purpose in existence is basically breeding stock, raising children. I don't see how your viewpoints are any different than what feminism critiques of Christianity contends. And in a modern, liberated society, it is archaic, ignorant, and just plain idiotic.
You would think gender relations would have improved over the two thousand years we've had to work on it.
| inwardtransience chapter 14 . 11/13/2014
[No basis for morality.]
I strongly disagree with the assertion that morality can come only from some sort of higher authority. That's ridiculous. Some of the greatest, most well-respected moral philosophers in the history of the world have been atheists or agnostic—all the way from classical Athens to the German Enlightenment. And, personally, I feel any morality based on the idea of "do this or you'll go to hell forever" to be incredibly childish. I do not do what is right because I'll be punished if I don't. I do it because it's the right thing to do.
Is ludicrous. There is a very long tradition in philosophy of tearing apart the basic premise of Pascal's Wager—even among Christians. Look it up.
[God can be proven though...]
I have never seen such a satisfactory proof. Personally, I believe in God myself—though I am not so arrogant as to claim much knowledge of what sort of being He really is. I look forward to the possibility of any proof or disproof, though I personally don't think it's possible. But then you say...
[...by many testimonies of many people...]
Testimony is NOT PROOF. I can say Jesus descended from the sky in a sundress and flowered hat, and we had a wonderful conversation about the moral implications of milk tea, and afterward I lost twenty pounds and my heart condition cleared right up, but that doesn't make it at all true. Proof is a physical, incontrovertible, preponderance of evidence. And there is no such thing.
What do you mean, creation from destruction? What destruction is going on? That doesn't make any sense.
There are mathematical models that demonstration the formation of the Solar System, including why some planets spin the "wrong" way. Check out the Wiki article "Formation and Evolution of the Solar System" for a quick summary.
The process that led to the creation of galaxies/stars/planets/etc is called accretion. It's a cascade process of gravitation, and does not violate entropy. Look it up.
A common problem many people have with the Big Bang theory is that they believe it explains where the universe came from. But it does NOT explain what caused the universe to be. It is an explanation of /how/, not an answer as to /why/. It is a physical process, and nothing more. I've actually seen religious people who quite like the Big Bang theory, largely because one of the events in the process involves a great release of photons. You know, "let there be light" and all that.
The entire rest of this is completely pointless. You repeatedly misunderstand the basic theory of evolution and natural selection, for one thing. You ignore the preponderance of evidence in the fossil record documenting the differentiation of the many species extent on this planet. You ignore the great genetic similarity between much life—especially among inactive genes.
A small proportion of scientists falsifying evidence does not prove the entire theory of evolution is false. It does prove that small proportion are a bunch of assholes, but nothing more. An application of the same sort of logic would be if I said that, following your previous critiques of certain sects of Christianity, that means all Christianity is false. Which I'm sure you would disagree with.
Your examples of animals that supposedly violate evolution very much do not. They may seem extraordinary at first glance, but (in most cases) the fossil record very clearly demonstrates these strange physical traits gradually coming into existence. And even if they did not, simply the fact that their current biology is unlikely is not PROOF that it could not have evolved that way. Your example of the human eye, for instance—there are many examples through extent species of less well-developed organs, the least complex only able to detect the presence of light above a certain threshold. The evolution of the eye is well-documented. Look it up.
[There could only be the explanation of an Intellectual Designer...]
Ever heard of the dysteleological argument? The basic idea is that there are many cases of flawed or inefficient systems in various organisms, sometimes even threatening the life of the organism itself. Some of these flaws inherent in humans such as the pharynx, the appendix, dental structure, the eye (a flaw in mammalian eyes gives them a blind spot absent in other animals), problems with the spinal column... Yeah, I can't imagine an intelligent Creator doing those on purpose.
Then we have to wonder, if God did just make the world the way it was, why put all those veritably ancient fossils all over the place? Is He intentionally testing our faith? Why would a God who supposedly loves us all, wants us all to be saved, intentionally risk losing any of us?
[There are many misunderstandings about God...]
As there are many misunderstandings about science. As you have so effectively demonstrated.
| inwardtransience chapter 12 . 11/13/2014
I was a practicing neopagan for a few years before abandoning it myself. I wasn't Wicca—Wicca is a very particular sect among neopaganism that quite annoys me. But that's not the point.
I'm not going to criticize you for applying Christian ideals to people who don't observe them again. I've already done that.
Instead I'll just shortly point out that your little thing on the origin of paganism is COMPLETELY incorrect. For one thing, Nimrod never existed. There are absolutely no primary sources of his existence outside the Bible. Babylonia was NOT the first "world empire"—that honor is held by the Akkadians, centered on the Sumerian city of Akkad. There may have been one during the earlier Uruk period, but evidence for it is scarce. Babylonia didn't rise until significantly after that. Old Testament vitriol against Babylon is quite understandable. Much of it was written during the Babylonian Exile, when the Jewish leadership were torn from Israel, many imprisoned, and the practice of native religion was suppressed. It is during the Exile that much messianic prophecy was written, detailing a personage who would restore the fallen Kingdom. The Torah was, depending on opinion, modified, appended, or completely written during this period as well, working to give Jews a national religion and identity they could hold on to in the midst of oppression.
There is even archaeological evidence that, not long before the Exile, Jews practiced a polytheistic religion. Archaeology tracks a gradual trend of abandoning the old polytheistic religion and switching to Jewish monotheism. The theory goes that the monotheistic God of Abraham was either invented or simply promoted as a sort of nationalist propaganda to better unite the Tribes. It is generally accepted by historians that monotheism in the West gradually developed out of polytheism—not the other way around. In fact, God Himself in Shemot (Exodus) identifies Himself as El Shaddai, one of the many attested gods of ancient Semitic religion.
But, you know. Choose what you want to believe.
| inwardtransience chapter 10 . 11/13/2014
Wow. That was arrogant.
Quoting the Bible to criticize Buddhism and other Eastern religions makes absolutely no sense. Buddhists do not recognize the authority of the Christian Bible, it has no hold on them. Expecting people to align themselves with a book they have never read and sometimes never even heard of—or in the case of Siddharta himself, was written AFTER HE DIED—is completely ridiculous.
Your idea of what Buddhism "lacks" is completely ethnocentric as well. The majority of Eastern religions see no need for any sort of savior figure. They have completely different ideas of what sin is, and how to live outside of its influence. They hold to completely different theories of eschatology. Assigning the need for any sort of messianic messiah to their belief system is evidence of a Judeo-Christian bias. Well, actually, I shouldn't even include the "Judeo" part—most contemporary Jews don't believe in the Messiah as a literal person, nor do they traditionally believe in the eternal nature of the soul (though contamination with Christian ideas has changed that among some). So I guess it's just a Christian/Muslim thing.
The Western religions, projecting their values on other cultures once again. How fun.
| inwardtransience chapter 9 . 11/13/2014
lol. This whole thing was patently ridiculous. I particularly like how you conflated Catholicism and Nazis, despite the fact that Nazi policy was explicitly hostile to Catholicism (Catholic organizations/periodicals were forced to cease, Catholics were banned from teaching children, Catholics priests/friars/nuns were imprisoned and killed). Pius XI and XII wrote and circulated many missives criticizing fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Stalinist Russia. The personal writings of people close to Hitler wrote of how these completely infuriated him, and how he vowed to stamp Catholicism (and later down the line, Christianity in general) out of existence.
I'm not even going to bother contradicting this fictionalization of the rise of Islam. All of it is so absurd I wouldn't even know where to start. I could probably point out that Alberto Rivera is an /enormous/ fraud. He was never ordained as a priest, was never a Jesuit. In fact, in the time frame he claimed to be working for the Jesuits, he was living in the US with a wife and two children, as evidenced by documentation in his own hand. While he lived, several warrants were out for his arrest for various crimes, mostly fraud. Personally, I have to wonder if Alberto Rivera actually claimed any of these things, or if they were all completely invented by the notoriously ignorant Jack Chick, who is the only source for ANY of these claims. I wouldn't be surprised.
Fiction is fun, but try not to confuse it with history.
| inwardtransience chapter 8 . 11/13/2014
[Use King James Version, in my opinion. Best English Bible and a concordance for Hebrew and Greek translation.]
Except, of course, that King James gave very specific, politically-motivated instructions to his translators. The translators widely ignored older manuscripts, and the end result is very heavily Latinate. Compare the King James Old Testament to surviving ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Tanakh or early versions of the Septuagint, and you'll find all kinds of interesting omissions, additions, or questionable translations—many older versions of the Tanakh didn't even include some things like the Book of Daniel (some modern ones still don't), fourteen completely different Hebrew words were variably translated as "prince," things like that. Some of the wordings in the Nevi'im were completely changed to support Christ mythology (for instance, in the thing you have quoted a couple times about looking on someone pierced—that language has been radically changed repeatedly). You get the picture. Generally, I think, if you're going to take a holy text word for word, you should do it in the original language. If you want to truly know the Old Testament, learn Hebrew. And I mean historical Biblical Hebrew, complete with socio-historical context and education in the connotation of words at the time. If you don't have that knowledge, your understanding of the Old Testament is incomplete, and quite possibly misguided.
And don't even get me started on the politics of which writings to include in the New Testament canon. It's ridiculous.
I see have once again conflated Satanism and Freemasonry, again mentioning the extinct Illuminati. Managed to lump in Jewish Kabbalah as well. All these are very, very different movements, with radically different systems of beliefs, and if you're going to keep referencing them, I suggest you educate yourself. Preferably through the validated research of recognized historians, not the a priori ramblings of the paranoid uneducated.
| inwardtransience chapter 7 . 11/13/2014
Ah, the Trinity. You've mentioned it a few times, and I was waiting for this. All you have said here are very common misunderstandings of what exactly the Trinity is.
The Catholic church DOES NOT teach that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate gods. Actually, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is somewhat ignostic on the exact nature of God—that is to say, we as physical, mortal, limited beings can not come close to understanding the nature of God. All the Trinity does is provide people with a way of understanding the different ways God interacts with the people of the world. They are NOT separate entities. The Catechism is very careful in explaining that, while we recognize the different roles God takes, they are all one holy being. I've actually read the whole thing, even though there were certain passage that made me want to burn it (mostly relating to women and sexuality).
The Trinity is a convenience for a human understanding of the complexities of an eternal, unknowable God. Ask anyone properly educated in Catholic doctrine, and they'll tell you that.
| inwardtransience chapter 6 . 11/13/2014
[Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to register in the Roman census. These census would not have been done during winter because people would have to travel in cold weather on poor roads.]
I would hardly call anything that happens in the Levant "cold weather." It hardly ever gets below freezing. Dirt roads may have been problematic, as it tends to rain a bit during the "winter" (there is no such thing as a European winter in the region), but most major roads were laid stone, so it wouldn't have been a problem.
Also, aligning Jesus' birth with the census is problematic. Generally, both religious and secular historians place his birth sometime in the years leading up to the death of Herod (4 BCE). This date is taken both from references in the Nativity to Herod, as well as working backward from later references to Jesus' age. But the census Luke refers to is the census of Quirinius, which happened a good ten years later (6-7 CE). Most people (excluding fundamentalists, obviously) suggest Luke is simply in error.
I was always taught the birth was sometime in March, but it isn't really relevant exactly when it happened.
[...since the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers I believe was to blaspheme Jesus' birth...]
...and your justification for this belief is what? lol
| inwardtransience chapter 5 . 11/13/2014
Yeah, not gonna defend Mormonism either. Complete, polarizing, brainwashing crap. The Christian version of Scientology lol
[When the Bible is against slavery.]
Wrong. Reread Leviticus, specifically chapter 25. Biblical Jews were very much for the ethical treatment of slaves, but they very certainly did own slaves. Slavery is one of the issues the Old and New Testament tend to conflict on.
[The Israelites did a lot of things that trespassed God, that doesn't make what they did right. They sacrificed babies, had bloodlust, conformed to pagan practices.]
Okay, when I read this, I actually laughed out loud. Especially at the "sacrificed babies" part. People actually believe that? I always thought when people said that they were joking, or were just some irrational antisemite who will believe anything. If you think any of those three are an accurate portrayal of Jewish faith/practice, at any point in history, you are seriously deluded.
Oh, and also, Satanism and Freemasonry have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and the Illuminati were very much atheists. That's all for now.
| inwardtransience chapter 4 . 11/13/2014
I'm not going to defend Calvinism either. I actually know quite a bit about it—my mom grew up Calvinist (Dutch Reformed, specifically), and it's one of the major divisions of Christianity we studied in school. I quite despise Calvinism, mostly because it supports this idea many Christians have that you don't have to /do/ anything. An idea not limited to Calvinism of course—there are many other Protestants, and even many Catholics, who think all you have to do to be saved is believe, which essentially results in the same approach to life. Which, if we read only the Gospels and ignore the stuff written after Jesus, you know, died, is patently ridiculous. (My greatest religious enemy is probably Paul of Tarsus, a close second being Augustine of Hippo.) But whatever.
I just want to point out, that by the definition of Protestant, you /are/ Protestant.
[A member of any of several Christian denominations which separated from the Roman Catholic Church based on theological or political differences during the Reformation (or sometimes later).]
The major divisions in Christianity are Eastern and Western—that is, Greek and Roman. There are a couple minor splits in the Greek Church, but the big one we talk about in the West is Protestantism from Catholicism.
Basically, Christian scholarship puts Christian sects into three categories: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. If you are not Orthodox or Catholic, you are Protestant. Especially since, as I've seen so far, you profess certain individualist and fundamentalist beliefs that are at the core of Protestantism.
| inwardtransience chapter 3 . 11/12/2014
Okay. I'm not even going to /try/ to defend the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic, and while I wholeheartedly support certain select ethical concerns (largely the call to social justice), I very much detest pretty much everything else.
But I can point out a couple things.
[The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon because they derive their pagan practices from the original pagan city of Babylon.]
Yeah, no. That is very historically erroneous. The pagan elements in Catholic worship were inherited from the Romans, who largely copied them from the Greeks, who (indirectly) inherited them from the Egyptians. Early Egyptian and Sumerian/Akkadian (precursors to Babylonia) cultures possibly had a degree of cross-contamination—as they certainly knew of the existence of each other—but whether one set of myths was completely derived from the other is unprovable.
Calling Babylon the "original" pagan city is also, to be frank, ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing "original" about Babylonian religion. Very similar polytheistic religions, with very similar practices, are extent in the Fertile Crescent a good one and a half millennia before the city was originally founded around 2300 BCE. Sumerian religion. Look it up.
And, well, as long as we're talking about Christianity, I /could/ point out that Jesus COMPLETELY FAILS to fulfill Jewish prophecy regarding the Messiah. How much of modern Christianity is based on misunderstandings or corruptions of Jewish practice and belief—like, for instance, what exactly the Messiah is—or has been completely invented a priori over the intervening centuries since the split with Judaism
But, you know, you've read the Bible. Surely if you've put as much thought into considering your own faith as you have condemning Catholicism, you must have noticed that.
| inwardtransience chapter 1 . 11/12/2014
Let me first open this by saying that I was born sterile. I will never become pregnant, it is completely impossible. Some people will say that immediately invalidates my opinion, so I'm just saying it first so you can decide to ignore me if you want.
Personally, I never understood the idea of the appeal to fetal development to argue people out of abortion. The first time I had ever heard of this argument was actually, of all things, in Juno. The whole "your baby has fingernails" thing. To me it is a complete non-sequitur, has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
[Would you kill a human with all their vitals, 5 senses and consciousness intact?]
Why, yes, yes I would. In certain situations, anyway—I am a very strong supporter of the right to die, within acceptable ethical constraints.
But anyway, that's not the point. One of my main reasons for support of the continued legality of abortion—I personally never say pro-choice in reference to my own beliefs, as I feel it's misleading—is that, while an unborn child may be human, I do not believe they are a /person/, and thus are not accorded any individual rights. Personhood is a concept referenced in various Western philosophies, with all sorts of attendant meanings. Personally, I define personhood as an individual's rational ability to understand their own actions. Anyone who cannot do so, I would argue, does not function on a level worthy of moral consideration. The mother does, so her interests have priority.
The obvious problem with this that some people might choose to point out is that even children up to an uncertain age are incapable of such rational thought, and perhaps even a good portion of adults. But this objection points to what I believe to actually be the most important aspect of this issue: Where do you draw the line? At what point do we decide, /this/ is life? /Any/ point you could pick is completely arbitrary. You could say, conception, from that instant on that's a potential person. But the egg was just as much a potential person before being fertilized; by an extension of the same logic, you are committing tacit murder every menstrual cycle you fail to get pregnant.
Of course, by the same logic, men commit mass murder weekly. An incomplete understanding of male biology along this line of thought is what led to the Orthodox Jewish prohibition against male masturbation. But whatever.
The main problem with abortion is where to draw the line. Since you admit there are "justifiable reasons," you must draw the line somewhere. Anywhere you draw it is going to be completely arbitrary, as is are our definitions of things like life and sentience and personhood in the first place.
[And don't tell me the World is overpopulated...]
This section has several glaring problems. Primarily, that a significant portion of the land you parcel out in Australia is completely unsuitable for agricultural development as it currently stands. Overpopulation, despite popular understanding, has nothing to do with an unavailability of physical land, nor anything to do with a lack of resources. The problem of overpopulation is the lack of sufficient resources properly distributed /where they are needed/. Overpopulation is not a global problem, but a local one. There are many regions across the globe where there is no overpopulation crisis—in fact, there are locales were underpopulation is becoming an issue.
We speak of overpopulation when a community grows beyond the ability of the available resources to support. There are many ways to address overpopulation. The method generally supported by Western society is to increase the efficiency with which we produce/gather/distribute resources—put to practical and effective use during the Green Revolution of India during the 1970s. We are constantly inventing new technologies to stretch the reach of available resources.
The major problems with this are two very elementary principles of physics—the conservation of energy and the general idea of entropy. In short, there is /absolutely/ a limit to the population any region on this planet can support. Science will possibly be able to keep up with the growth of our population for a long time, but not forever. Just something to keep in mind.
Just be glad I didn't elucidate on the mass expenditure of resources that would be necessary to actually put your raw idea of the development of Australia into effect :P