Royal Brunei: Melbourne to Seoul $676 Return with 20kg Luggage (Feb-June '24) @ Google Flights

611

Royal Brunei: Melbourne to Seoul $676 Return with 20kg Luggage (Feb-June '24) @ Google Flights

AssociatedCheapFlightHunter @ Cheap Flight Hunter on 31/12/2023 - 17:38 google.com (3523 clicks)
Last edited 04/01/2024 - 22:55 by 2 other users

Solid deal on full service Royal Brunei Airlines flying into Seoul via Bandar Seri Begawan. Royal Brunei is a dry airline, but they do allow you to BYO on board. Flights include 20kg checked luggage. Dates are from February to June 2024 and include cherry blossom season (late March to mid-April).

I like to use Google Flights to easily find dates, then you can book through their links, too.

Melbourne (MEL) - Seoul (ICN) $676

Found by Cheap Flight Hunter. Sign up (free!) to get deals like this sent straight to your inbox.

Referral Links

Google One: random (150)

Targeted offer: Referee gets 75% off first 3 months of Google One. Referrer get $7.

Travel Airfare Asia Seoul South Korea

14 Feb

Related Stores

Google

Cheap Flight Hunter

Third-Party

Royal Brunei Airlines

closed Comments

- 11112007 on 31/12/2023 - 18:42
  
  +2
  
  Bro, you will be able to spot them from your backyard, dont need to go all the way to Korea.
  
  The Hwasong-18 can reach 15,000km…. double the distance between Pyongyang and Melbourne for example.
Medrad on 31/12/2023 - 18:26

Oh wow! They allow BYO on board now? Things have definitely changed since I last flew pre Covid… couldn't even have Duty Free from elsewhere in your luggage for transfer onto your home leg due to being a dry country.
- eggboi on 01/01/2024 - 02:24
  
  +1
  
  It was BYO when i flew BNE-LHR return in 2019. Cost all of $1100 as well. Those were the days! Now you pay $750 in taxes alone for a “free” flight using points. Ridiculous.
  
  Side note: I wonder why there are so many people whinging about Brunei here while they stay silent on the Qatar deals.
- Flying Ace on 01/01/2024 - 11:52
  
  It was BYO back in the early 2000s when we were going to Europe with them too as far as I can recall.
blazinchoppa on 31/12/2023 - 18:31

+1

Similar prices also available through Jetstar. I found one from Brisbane, March 15 - 21, $640 incl. 20kg checked baggage.

Obligatory "if your flight doesn't get cancelled"
- CheapBrah on 31/12/2023 - 18:32
  
  +1
  
  You're comparing jetstar to a full service airline…
  - blazinchoppa on 31/12/2023 - 18:33
    
    I live nowhere near Melbourne so it's all that's available for me/others at this price from that location.
  - Mechz on 31/12/2023 - 22:53 Comment score below threshold.
- Almost Banned on 31/12/2023 - 18:40
  
  +1
  
  I was about to comment that this is similar to the price you'd pay for a LCC - so this is a good deal.
Frozensage on 31/12/2023 - 18:57

+14

Flew with they 7 years ago with a 2 yo. Was really friendly service and the flights were half empty. Not being able to drink alcohol on flight is a plus in my book.
- perfectlydark on 31/12/2023 - 19:35
  
  +1
  
  im borderline alco and i never understood the appeal of drinking on board
  - bargain ben on 31/12/2023 - 19:45
    
    +1
    
    A tipple is nice (1-2 drinks). Any more than that then I’m in agreeance.
    - Almost Banned on 31/12/2023 - 20:46
      
      Or agreement.
      - dirtydealdog on 01/01/2024 - 11:03
        
        +2
        
        @Almost Banned: Unregardlessly, they make a salient point
JoyVee on 31/12/2023 - 19:07

Leave MEL 31 March Return 10 April, 42 hrs, stop over in Brunei, 16 hrs return home flight.
Anyone found a better option?
- z28 on 31/12/2023 - 19:19
  
  +2
  
  Stay home and save.
- shaybisc on 31/12/2023 - 20:25
  
  +1
  
  "The new law mostly applies to Muslims, though some aspects will also apply to non-Muslims. It stipulates the death penalty for a number of offences, including rape, adultery, sodomy, robbery and insulting or defaming the Prophet Muhammad."
  
  Don't do any of that on your stop over, folks. Great deal.
- BlackorRed on 31/12/2023 - 21:43
  
  42hrs layover in Brunei airport is a pain in the ass, you should ask the airline to compensate free accommodation outside or have a day tour in Brunei.
  My family and I was there in April to Japan but just a few hrs layover, the airport was empty during Ramadan month so only one coffee shop was open. Wifi in the airport was terrible, I had to go around to find a good connection spots
  But other than that, Brunei has new planes and service was not too bad so that you should expect
  - ilikeit on 31/12/2023 - 22:03
    
    You can see the whole country in 42 hours - no joke.
  - z28 on 01/01/2024 - 15:35
    
    +1
    
    It stipulates the death penalty for a number of offences, including rape, adultery, sodomy,
    
    42hrs layover in Brunei airport is a pain in the ass,
    
    You have been warned.
- AnyFurtherDiscount on 02/01/2024 - 13:46
  
  They will 100% provide you free accommodation. Last 3 of my flights were 19 hours+ and all 3 times stayed in Times hotel, with free airport transfers + meals. Free layovers.
  - Gen Ice on 02/01/2024 - 22:10
    
    How do you request them?
    - AnyFurtherDiscount on 03/01/2024 - 10:05
      
      Call their Melbourne Office (1 time) or Visit their Melbourne Office (2 times, next to where I work).
      - Gen Ice on 03/01/2024 - 10:16
        
        @AnyFurtherDiscount: Ok. Thanks
JoyVee on 31/12/2023 - 19:27

Ooos 29 March 34 hrs MEL to ICN includes overnight at your additional expense. Still cheap price for comfort. Return trip better.
polstralian on 31/12/2023 - 19:52 Comment score below threshold.
- ilikeit on 31/12/2023 - 20:13
  
  +6
  
  Brunei - 'abode of peace.' It is very chill - as in barely has a pulse. It's an Islamic law interpretation they have that exists that isn't enforced - but more of a message.
  
  Neg away, but as a former resident, these are just the facts. Of course, I do not agree with them. Every country has a ridiculous human rights law/s though - including Australia.
  - thrillho on 01/01/2024 - 07:52
    
    +2
    
    Also former resident, agree with above.
- funky on 31/12/2023 - 20:24 Comment score below threshold.
- Almost Banned on 31/12/2023 - 20:51
  
  -8
  
  Funny how many of the LGBTQI crowd are marching for Palestine.
  Meanwhile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Pa….
  
  Almost Banned on 31/12/2023 - 20:51 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  - callum9999 on 01/01/2024 - 01:01
    
    +10
    
    You do realise it's possible to disagree with people without supporting the slaughter of them, their children and their babies? Not to mention, even if you can only comprehend self-interest, LGBTQI people aren't bomb-proof - they're also being slaughtered.
    
    People like using that thinking they have some kind of "gotcha moment", but make the mistake of assuming everyone is as morally vapid as themselves….
    - Almost Banned on 01/01/2024 - 12:02
      
      -8
      
      You do realise that supporting a murderous terrorist organisation is pretty bad even without them also specifically targetting your people for extermination?
      Supporting Hamas is supporting a regime that would throw you off a building as soon as look at you.
      And there is no difference between supporting Peace for Palestine and supporting Hamas directly.
      - freefall101 on 01/01/2024 - 13:33
        
        +4
        
        @Almost Banned: Throwing the word “terrorist” as a justification for bombing the crap out of someone stopped being effective in about 2005.
        
        And lol at your logic here. So no matter what is done to the Palestinian people it’s fine because Hamas is bad? Where do you draw the line on that one, or is there no line at all?
        
        Almost Banned on 01/01/2024 - 14:24
        
        -4
        
        @freefall101: When they stop supporting a terrorist organisation and surrender the hostages.
        And its a lie that anything goes with the Palestinian people. No country has tolerated a terrorist organisation on its border dedicated to its destruction, and no country has made the efforts Israel has to avoid harm to civilians. But when Hamas refuses to let people leave, when they steal the aid designated for civilians, when they use civilian infrastructure, Hamas chooses to make civilians targets.
        And the word 'terrorist' is not just being thrown around. Hamas is a listed terrorist organisation in a multitude of countries - including this one.
        
        freefall101 on 01/01/2024 - 14:49
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned:
        
        When they stop supporting a terrorist organisation and surrender the hostages
        
        Pretty sure they’re not being held by the Palestinian civilians.
        
        and no country has made the efforts Israel has to avoid harm to civilians
        
        Hamas has killed less Israeli civilians than Israel has killed Palestinian and they’re a terrorist organisation. I find this assertion a bit hard to believe.
        
        Hamas chooses to make civilians targets
        
        So let me get this straight, supporting Palestinian civilians is a bad move because Hamas has made them targets, so to fight Hamas Israel has to kill civilians?
        
        Almost Banned on 01/01/2024 - 16:20
        
        -2
        
        @freefall101: Yeah - you'd be wrong on your first point. Multiple hostages were indeed held by civilians - or at least held by whole families who were aligned with Hamas. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_…
        You'd also be wrong on your second. Firstly, its 'fewer'. Secondly, this is an asymmetrical war. About 3k Americans died on 9/11. More than 4.5m deaths have resulted from post-9/11 actions. When one side is committed to the complete annihilation of a people, those people are justified in removing that threat. Thirdly, no invading force in history has telegraphed its actions as much as the IDF has, and no invading force in history phones targets before strikes, drops leaflets warning of strikes, drop knock bombs before the actual strike, and highly selective targetting.
        No, claiming that Israel must leave in place a murderous terrorist organisation because their tactic of making war unpalatable to the West by ratcheting up civilians casualties is a bad move because it shows the West is weak, leaves Hamas in place, and encourages them to do it all over again because they know that the West won't allow Israel to retaliate properly.
        
        freefall101 on 03/01/2024 - 14:54
        
        @Almost Banned: Are you saying the deaths from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are justified? Wow dude.
        
        The world is full of people who want to kill each other, if we started killing them all it would never end.
        
        Thirdly, no invading force in history has telegraphed its actions as much as the IDF has, and no invading force in history phones targets before strikes, drops leaflets warning of strikes, drop knock bombs before the actual strike, and highly selective targetting.
        
        22,000 dead civilians, they're doing a bang up job. Their denial of basics like fresh water definitely will teach Hamas, they were totally going to make water bombs and attack Israel again.
        
        Israel already gave up on their telegraphed actions as well - https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-wa… - and when the "selective targeting" includes residential housing and hospital
        
        claiming that Israel must leave in place a murderous terrorist organisation
        
        Things I absolutely never said. No one here supports Hamas. This is just going in a circle, you claim that everyone is supporting Hamas but you've failed to prove how Israel justifiably needs to kill this many people. Where's the list of arrests/deaths of Hamas leadership? One was today - they assassinated him in Beirut, no bombing of civilians needed.
      - callum9999 on 01/01/2024 - 14:46
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: I do indeed realise that. I've yet to encounter an LGBT campaigner that supports Hamas, but I'll be sure to relay your objection if I do.
        
        There absolutely is a difference and it's depressing people like yourself allow your internal hatred to override your logical thinking abilities. Unless you're able to provide a rational explanation for the claim?
        
        Almost Banned on 01/01/2024 - 16:20
        
        -2
        
        @callum9999: See my last sentence in the comment above.
        Stopping the war and leaving Hamas in place merely signals the weakness of the West, and rewards and emboldens Hamas to do it all over again.
        
        callum9999 on 01/01/2024 - 23:35
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: You think there's zero middle ground between genocide (an emotive word that you may want to dispute, if so, change that to war crimes - something beyond dispute that Israel has openly stated on the record that it does) and "do absolutely nothing"?
        
        While I'm sure they exist somewhere, I can honestly say I've never encountered a protester calling for "Hamas to be left in place and rewarded".
        
        The narrative spread by people like yourself that "you must support genocide otherwise you support terrorists" is as vile as it is moronic.
        
        Almost Banned on 02/01/2024 - 00:02
        
        @callum9999: Again, stopping the war and leaving Hamas in place only rewards their behaviour and enboldens them for next time.
        They know the West has no stomach for civilian casualties and are praying that they can wait this out while throwing their own people in front of the bombs. Their incentive structure is to exacerabate the civilian losses, because they know how it plays in western media and with the bleeding heart leftists - which is exactly what you and your ilk are playing into.
        
        callum9999 on 02/01/2024 - 16:11
        
        @Almost Banned: If you're going to continue dishonestly arguing that the ONLY options are "carpet bomb an entire country while openly committing war crimes" or "reward Hamas and let them continue doing whatever they want unchallenged" then I'm going to have to stop talking to you. I'd have a more productive discussion with a brick wall.
        
        Almost Banned on 02/01/2024 - 21:20
        
        @callum9999: Why are you placing words in quotes that you know are not only not quotes from me but outright lies?
        Israel is not even remotely 'carpet bomb[ing] an entire country'.
        I have already pointed out several of the measures Israel is taking to minimise civilian casualties.
        It is your dishonesty that is making this discussion unproductive.
        Please tell me - how does Israel seek justice for the 7 October attacks AND stop them from reoccuring without taking out Hamas and repatriating the hostages? And how do they take out Hamas and repatriate the hostages without invading Gaza?
        Every single civilian casualty is on the head of Hamas. They started it, they prevent civilians from leaving, they use civilian infrastructure to hide - making them targets, and they continue to launch rockets at Israel even now, as well as pay bounties to the families of suicide bombers. They scuttled the cease-fire by launching rockets at Israel, but you don't seem to care about that, do you?
        
        callum9999 on 02/01/2024 - 22:35
        
        @Almost Banned: I thought it was obvious from context that I was paraphrasing you, not quoting you. I don't think it's an inaccurate paraphrase - have you not repeatedly responded to criticism of Israeli bombardments with (and this is actually a quote this time) "claiming that Israel must leave in place a murderous terrorist organisation"?
        
        70% of the homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed and, the last figure I can see from mid-November, says they've dropped 29,000 bombs on the tiny territory. I don't think describing that as "carpet bombing" is particularly hyperbolic.
        
        I think it's pretty obvious that I wouldn't agree with the claim they're trying hard to avoid civilian casualties. Do I need to remind you that the IDF publicly announced at the beginning of the conflict that they're focussed on causing "maximum damage over accuracy"?
        
        By stopping their continuous breaches of international law, dismantling their illegal settlements, dismantling their apartheid system and promoting the development of the West Bank and Gaza so people there don't have a reason to support Hamas or any other attacks on Israel (people with fulfilled lives tend not to sacrifice it all to join a terrorist group). I'm more interested in why you think the current war will achieve those goals though? I assume you're not naive enough to think it's possible to eliminate Hamas militarily? I assume you're not naive enough to think a child growing up in an open-air prison, orphaned when Israeli bombs killed their entire family, is going to think "isn't Israel such a great place - we should work to protect it"?
        
        You can state that all you want. Every single civilian casualty is on the head of whoever killed them. This conflict actually started well before Hamas existed, so no, they didn't "start" it at all. Did you only start paying attention to the region on 7th October? It would explain a lot.
        
        Can you please point out one single thing I've said that even comes close to inferring that I "don't care about Hamas launching rockets at Israel"? You'll notice that, despite you reducing every point to "if you criticise Israel then you support Hamas", I've not said a single nice thing about them - why do you keep assuming that I do?
        
        Almost Banned on 03/01/2024 - 13:09
        
        @callum9999: Oh Callum - when you talk about 'apartheid system' you show you really are ignorant of both modern Israel and apartheid. You may not be old enough to remember, but there were no blacks on South Africa's Supreme Court under apartheid. Can't say that about Israel.
        When you claim quotes that are not quotes - and only use the ones harmful to Israel - you undermine any credibility you had. https://honestreporting.com/questionable-haaretz-reporting-u…
        By continuing to use the term carpet-bombing to describe a situation that it clearly not carpet-bombing, you show you care more about ideology than accuracy.
        By your logic the Allies bear responsibility for all the dead Germans in the firebombing of Dresden.
        Sure, there is a long history in this region. None of it includes a self-governing Palestinian state - but it could have now, had Arafat completely rejected it.
        Your position of stopping the war without the removal of Hamas shows precisely where your ideology lies.
        
        callum9999 on 03/01/2024 - 13:55
        
        @Almost Banned: I don't think you properly address anything at all, so will you agree to discuss one point at a time? Let's start with your first.
        
        Apartheid: "inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”
        
        Israeli law states that self-determination is "unique to the Jewish people". Both the government and parliament refers to Palestinians being in Israel as a demographic threat.
        
        Palestinians living in West Bank are subject to military law, Israelis living in the West Bank are subject to civil law.
        
        Palestinians living in the West Bank are segregated from Israeli settlers and cannot enter the settlements, can only use designated roads and are subject to an extensive road block and checkpoint system to protect Israeli settlers.
        
        That alone seems to fit the definition, but I could go on and on and on. UN human rights reports and legal analysis from experts at the likes of Amnesty International and HRW agree it's apartheid (and their legal reports on this will explain it far better than I ever could). Why are we all wrong?
        
        Almost Banned on 03/01/2024 - 14:16
        
        @callum9999: So, you are not going to address that you have TWICE claimed quotes that are not quotes and instead just parrot Amnesty and HRW - both biased anti-semitic organisations???
        Yes, Palestinians living in occupied territories are subject to different rules to those living in Israel proper. That should not be considered unusual - and nor should the Israeli Basic Law confirming that self-determination in Israel is limited to Jews. Imagine our constitution permitting self-determination to every indigenous tribe - then each clan deciding to create their own country.
        Israel is about 20% Arab. They hold seats in the Knesset and sit on the Supreme Court. That is nothing like apartheid.
        
        callum9999 on 03/01/2024 - 14:40
        
        @Almost Banned: Ok, getting you to focus on one point doesn't work either, so I'll go sentence by sentence.
        
        "So, you are not going to address that you have TWICE claimed quotes that are not quotes"
        
        I did indeed address it - what exactly are you requesting I do?
        
        "instead just parrot Amnesty and HRW - both biased anti-semitic organisations???"
        
        I think you'll find I actually gave a list of a handful of things Israel does that meets the definition (not that you read it, I'm not contrasting "West Bank" and "Israel proper" - I'm contrasting Palestinians in the West Bank with Israelis in the West Bank), then referred you to their reports for more information. You're a biased genocidal maniac yet I'm still talking to you and addressing your points on their own validity instead of blindly dismissing anything that leaves your mind because of the source, why can't you do the same?
        
        Almost Banned on 03/01/2024 - 16:34
        
        @callum9999: How exactly did you address your own dishonesty in TWICE claiming things were quotes when they were not?
        I absolutely do not support the genocide of Palestinians, but I do absolutely support the right of Israel to defend itself, including the repatriation of the two hundred hostages still being held (you haven't said anything about them, have you Callum), and the removal of an organisation that not only is committed to your destruction but which continues to fire rockets at civilian targets in your country.
        This can all end if Hamas hands back the hostages and turns over the leaders of the organisation. It will never happen again if Palestinians don't support Hamas, and don't go commit atrocities in Israel so their families will be paid a bounty for the Jews they kill.
        Now, do you remember freefall's claims about hostages not being held by civilians…??? How about this https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/israeli-hostage-re…
        The whole family was right on the other side of the door…
        
        callum9999 on 03/01/2024 - 17:14
        
        @Almost Banned: When I immediately replied to you and said - "I thought it was obvious from context that I was paraphrasing you, not quoting you."
        
        How does that not address it? I thought it was obvious (given the original text is directly above it) and I still do. I believe the paraphrasing accurately reflected what you had written, and I still do. For the SECOND time, what do you want me to address?
        
        Almost Banned on 03/01/2024 - 18:19
        
        @callum9999: You claimed you were quoting me when you were not. You have addressed your dishonesty there by simply waving it off as a dishonest paraphrase.
        But you have not dealt with your dishonest claim below:
        
        Do I need to remind you that the IDF publicly announced at the beginning of the conflict that they're focussed on causing "maximum damage over accuracy"?
        
        I specifically gave you the source showing this is not a quote - you have not addressed that at all.
        Claudine Gay, is that you???
        
        callum9999 on 03/01/2024 - 21:42
        
        @Almost Banned: You keep repeating that but I don't think I ever have? I immediately agreed it was NOT a quote the very second you brought it up. Then I agreed again. Then I agreed again.
        
        I didn't wave it off as a "dishonest paraphrase" - I've said again, and again, and again (are you actually listening to me?) that I believe it was honest. You can, and clearly do, disagree with that - but you cannot keep insisting that I "refuse to address" it just because you don't like my opinion. I sometimes paraphrase things using speech marks - I think you'd be quite right to say that's grammatically incorrect. If you disagree that my paraphrasing is accurate then you're also perfectly right in objecting to it. I don't know if you're just not used to ever conceding anything so can't recognise it, but I've been agreeing with you that they are not quotations from the second you objected so I'm finding your repeated demands that I "address" it confusing. Not least because I've now asked you three times what specifically you want addressed but you're refusing to tell me!
        
        Correct, I haven't addressed it at all. Was I not very clear when I said I'd only be addressing one point at a time? I feel like I was. I was getting sick of rebutting an objection, only for you to just ignore it and move on to a new point (which while I try not to do that, you may feel I am doing it too - so going point-by-point should work for both of us)? If we've resolved your complaint about me "not addressing" the quotations then I'm happy to move on to the next point of your choosing.
- CheapBrah on 31/12/2023 - 21:11
  
  +2
  
  How is it different from some of the middle eastern carriers? Probably one to avoid if you're homosexual but I'd also be avoiding Qatar Airways if I was (though I also avoid Qatar even though I'm not homosexual, way too many red flags in recent times).
  - Mechz on 31/12/2023 - 22:54
    
    -5
    
    I wouldn't fly any of them either.
  - ymmf on 01/01/2024 - 07:52
    
    Try Q Suite and it may just change your mind.
    - CheapBrah on 01/01/2024 - 13:56
      
      The problem for me is they don't seem to care about their reputation with accounts of things like sexually assaulting passengers, deporting staff members they suspect are gay, banning people who give bad reviews, firing staff who speak out about poor work conditions, and forcing staff to make false declarations. Which makes me think they probably don't care about safety either if their reputation isn't important to them alongside their lack of any sort of human decency and attempted cover ups.
      - callum9999 on 01/01/2024 - 23:43
        
        @CheapBrah: Their reputation is very important to them - did you not notice the World Cup?
        
        They feel that the vile beliefs they hold are morally correct, and accurately believe that most of the world either shares their belief or is largely indifferent to it. Their reputation isn't particularly impacted by this - look how many people are angry that they can't fly more flights to Australia. Put aside the laws that, realistically, aren't going to impact Australians who don't live in Qatar - even the physical sexual assault of Australian women at Doha Airport doesn't seem to put people off.
        
        I fully support anyone who refuses to fly them on moral grounds, but as far as I know, there's absolutely nothing to indicate their safety standards are poor.
- Bargaingeek on 31/12/2023 - 22:46
  
  -3
  
  as long as you don't have gay sex on the plane you'll be fine
  - Bertus on 31/12/2023 - 23:12
    
    +2
    
    What happens if it's unintended?
    - CptnObvious on 01/01/2024 - 09:45
      
      +1
      
      Those aisles are pretty tight and if I end up tripping and doing a faceplant into someone's crotch it's not on me.
  - illusion99 on 01/01/2024 - 07:39
    
    -1
    
    Will they be ok with hetro sex on the plane?
- The Wololo Wombat on 01/01/2024 - 02:02
  
  Murdering homosexuals is Muslim orthodox belief.
  
  The Wololo Wombat on 01/01/2024 - 02:02 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  - callum9999 on 01/01/2024 - 03:12
    
    +3
    
    Likewise with Christianity. A lot of the anti-homosexuality laws in these countries were originally implemented by Christian nations in fact - there's a reason why the majority of the Commonwealth have anti-homosexuality laws (both Muslim and Christian countries).
    
    Thankfully the UK and the rest of the developed world have long moved past that (not necessarily to full acceptance of course, but I can't think of a country where a homophobic murder wouldn't be seen as shocking). Once the developing world reaches the same milestones in rejecting/watering down their religion I'm sure they'll join us. It's a shame that we aren't using the diplomatic tools available to us to force them to hurry that along, but money always wins…
    - The Wololo Wombat on 01/01/2024 - 10:51
      
      +1
      
      Are you saying that modern Muslim states murder homosexuals… only because of the influences of colonial, pre-modern 'Christian' states? That's some serious mental gymnastics!
      
      Murdering homosexuals is a Muslim orthodox belief (Sharia) that is based on Quran, ḥadīth literature, and sunnah… murdering homosexuals is NOT a Christian orthodox belief (but was part of the law in pre-modern western states, as you have pointed out)
      
      I find it very strange people downvote this deal/boycott the airline but accept Etihad or Emarites or QTAR air… or even any other deal from a country that has Sharia Courts.
      - eman resu on 01/01/2024 - 14:24
        
        +1
        
        @The Wololo Wombat: no need to go into ancient time. 1982 you could be arrested and placed in prison for sodomy based on Australian law. So based on your enlightened thinking
        
        "detaining homosexuals is Australian orthodox law"
        
        The Wololo Wombat on 01/01/2024 - 14:57
        
        @eman resu: What point are you trying to make here? Are you arguing that murdering homosexuals is actually not a Muslim orthodox belief? That Australia is "just as bad" because we imprisoned homosexuals 40 years ago?
      - callum9999 on 01/01/2024 - 15:00
        
        @The Wololo Wombat: I'm not saying that, hence why I didn't write that. Why are so many people unwilling to actually read an argument instead of blindly assuming what you think someone expressing an argument like this might believe?
        
        "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Where on earth do you think the laws in Christian states came from? Why do most less developed Christian states still have incredibly oppressive anti-homosexuality laws? Because of the Bible….
        
        I don't find it that strange - people are ignorant. You're passionate about the topic yet apparently didn't even know that the bible commands a death penalty for homosexual acts (or did you dishonestly pretend it didn't to help your argument?).
        
        The Wololo Wombat on 01/01/2024 - 15:21
        
        @callum9999: No the Christian Bible does not command the death penalty. You are quoting Jewish Levitical (Moasaic) Law (Torah/Old Testament).
        
        Christians are followers of Jesus. The New Testament has Jesus directly addressing the stoning/death penalty, eg John 8.
        
        (to Jesus) "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
        
        (Jesus) “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
        
        (Jesus) "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
        
        callum9999 on 01/01/2024 - 15:33
        
        +1
        
        @The Wololo Wombat: The old testament IS part of the Bible. Period. That is so irrefutable that I'm not even going to dignify the argument and entertain an objection.
        
        While your chosen sect may no longer follow it, it is absolutely part of Christianity. As I said - a lot of developed countries have watered down Christianity to get rid of a lot of the abhorrent evil within it, the developing world will eventually do the same.
        
        The Wololo Wombat on 01/01/2024 - 15:37
        
        @callum9999: Of course, it's part of the Bible… but I'm not sure you understand Christianity. It's not a fringe belief… it's core….it's why Christians are free to eat pork, not be circumcised etc… large parts of the New Testament (entire books like Romans) deal with the Jews transitioning from the strict Levitical law to the 'freedom' of Christianity.
        
        callum9999 on 01/01/2024 - 15:56
        
        @The Wololo Wombat: The Bible is full of contradictions which allow you to pick and choose whatever you want to believe.
        
        If you genuinely think that there are no Christian sects that still preach death to homosexuals based on Bible verses like I quoted you're incredibly ignorant of the wider world. Last year alone, the strongly Christian Uganda introduced the death penalty for it - with numerous American churches campaigning for them to do so.
        
        Perhaps you think they're not "real Christians", but I don't doubt they'll say the same about you.
        
        jims2020 on 01/01/2024 - 18:29
        
        @callum9999: What made you even conclude Uganda is strongly Christian? No country on the face of the planet is even remotely Christian today. Though the very foundations of liberty of the Western world are based on Christian values, the West has systematically sidelined Christ and the Bible and continues to do so to this day. Westerners are attracted to Eastern philosophies and atheism. If you read the Bible, you will understand that all human beings are condemned to death - that includes me. The Bible says there are no good "Christians". All of us including homosexuals are condemned to death - not one of us is righteous. None of us can earn our way to heaven. Unlike all other faith systems that prescribe what you must/could do to reach heaven, the Bible condemns all of us to eternal damnation - it states none of us are worthy of entering heaven but deserve to die!
        
        callum9999 on 01/01/2024 - 23:27
        
        @jims2020: The fact that the majority of the country identifies as Christian?
        
        I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Uganda isn't in "the West" and while the Bible is a confused mess of random vague teachings shoved together that can mean almost anything you want it to, I'm fairly sure it doesn't state that no-one can go to heaven - you're going to need to cite the passages that say that!
        
        jims2020 on 02/01/2024 - 07:58
        
        @callum9999: Wonder why you would conclude from my response that I was suggesting Uganda was in the West? The logic you appear to apply, defies reality. The constitutions of most democracies are founded on the Biblical values for e.g. India - a vastly Hindu dominated country, but the freedoms Indians enjoy are because of the laws of equality and fraternity that their constitution provides them and that wasn't derived from any Hindu religious scripture. I am not surprised that you think the Bible is confusing and contradicting. I am glad you asked me for evidence from the Bible that states none of us would go to heaven, whilst you don’t seem keen to present evidence of your allegations. If you are able to point me to the contradictions that you have found, I will be more than happy to have a look at it. Below are the verses that state none of us human beings are righteous. By Jesus’s description of sexual morality in Matt 5, all men are adulterers.
        
        1 Cor 6:
        9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
        
        Rom 3 :
        “None is righteous, no, not one;
        11 no one understands;
        no one seeks for God.
        12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
        no one does good,
        not even one.”
        
        Matt 5 :
        27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
        
        callum9999 on 02/01/2024 - 13:39
        
        @jims2020: I didn't say you did think that, I said it isn't the West so your confusing rant is irrelevant to whether Uganda is Christian or not (something that was incredibly bizarre to question at all).
        
        Am I right in assuming that's your absolute best evidence to back up your claim that the bible says no-one on the planet can go to heaven? Putting aside the sheer arrogance that you think you know better than pretty much every church on the planet, none of those posts say anything of the sort. You're presumably inferring what you think they might mean? Why should I trust your judgement above, for example, the Pope's?
        
        How on Earth am I "not keen" to provide me own evidence? You haven't asked a single time… Bible contradictions have been studied by theologians for centuries and are well documented. If you're genuinely unaware, one at random:
        
        “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20
        
        “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
        
        And correct me if I'm wrong, but did God not actually visit the iniquity of Adam upon all of us - far beyond the third and fourth generation? Though of course only some cults actually believe that - some reject it, some fully support it and some add their own caveats, like the Catholics who think it vanishes at baptism (leading to the horrific suffering of countless parents whose baby has died before baptism believing they're in Hell - then limbo - now probably heaven). Weird how such a clear and non-contradictory book could spawn such radically different teachings.
        
        jims2020 on 02/01/2024 - 19:13
        
        @callum9999: Excellent point callum!
        
        The verses I have cited are completely from the NT which do not contradict the OT laws. These indeed underpin the 10 commandments - what further evidence would I need to cite besides the Word of God. The "pope" is just another sinner likes you and me and needs a saviour. The Catholic doctrines say the Pope is infallible - guess that speaks for itself. Yes if I can handle the Word of God rightly and honestly, I have the authority to proclaim it, lest I be a false teacher like the Pope.
        
        The context of Exodus 20:5 is a cultural aspect of idolatry just like in the present world. Idolatrous parents bring up their children on those lines - it is more than likely the children also end up like their parents as it is a part of the culture at large. The implication of Exodus 20:5 is that children are akin to their parents. A new generation will tend to repeat the sins of their forebears. Therefore, God “punishing the children” is simply another way of saying that the children are repeating the fathers’ sins. The tendency to repeat the mistakes of history is especially strong in an idolatrous culture.
        
        Another consideration is that the warning of Exodus 20:5 was part of the Mosaic Law governing Israel in the Old Testament. The generational curse should be seen as a collective punishment on the nation, not as a personal curse on individual families.
        The Bible is clear that we don't inherit the iniquities of anybody including our parents and so we are not punished for somebody else's sins - however willful indirect participation in committing a sin is also a sin - just to provide you the perspective e.g. turning a blind eye to evil.
        
        There is, however, one exception to this rule, and it applies to all mankind. One man bore the sins of others and paid the penalty for them so sinners could become completely righteous and pure in the sight of God. That man is Jesus Christ, who came into the world to exchange His perfection for our sin. “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus was punished for us.
        
        Christianity is a change of heart, a way of life, regeneration of an individual - being born again. Child baptism is no way biblical and it doesn't wash away anybody's sins - Roman Catholicism is anything but Christian!
        
        callum9999 on 02/01/2024 - 19:32
        
        @jims2020: If you're going to make absolutely ridiculous statements like "the Pope/Catholicism is not Christian" then I cannot take anything you say seriously. Unfortunately that means I won't be reading that reply. Hopefully someone else does so it's not a complete waste of your time.
        
        It perfectly demonstrates the point you've been arguing against. The bible is such a hot mess that Christians can't even get close to agree what it means (not just minor disagreements - enough that you feel confident to outright state that 1.3 BILLION people are so wrong that they cannot even call themselves Christian!?).
        
        jims2020 on 02/01/2024 - 19:48
        
        @callum9999: Yep - just because the world believes in a lie doesn't make it truth…if Christianity was about numbers, Christ would have had a zillion disciples lol…if you are honest defending Roman Catholicism - you should start with their CCC. Whether people read my post or not is not my worry - you asked, I responded. God doesn't need anybody to accomplish his will, if you believe in a god who needs a billion people to support his cause - probably you need to revisit your understanding of the god you worship - thats certainly not the God of the Holy Bible.
        
        I am quite shocked you think Roman Catholicism is Christianity in this day and age…when so much information is available freely to you to educate yourself on this topic!
        
        You might not recall, but I have had discussions with you in the past too on topics that relate to Christian faith - you tend to take the exit door by making allegations.
        
        callum9999 on 02/01/2024 - 20:14
        
        @jims2020: How on Earth is that "defending Roman Catholicism"? I think you're both equally gullible and believe equally stupid things. They are almost universally accepted to be Christian - your shock over me accepting that (and assumption that Christianity is so amazing that even an atheist would hold them in higher regard than a lowly Catholic!) is hilarious. I know it comes with the territory when you sign up to these nonsensical beliefs, but you're living in your own dream world if you think otherwise.
        
        Correct, I don't recall. Google cannot find any pages that feature both our usernames other than this one?
        
        I didn't make an "allegation", and have no idea what previous "allegations" you're talking about. It is an irrefutable fact that you are stating - repeatedly - that Catholics are not Christians. How do you suggest I have a fruitful conversation with someone so arrogant that they feel like they are able to dictate who is and isn't a "real Christian"? Not least because you're preaching, not actually answering questions. I'm still waiting for your proof that the bible states no human can go to heaven.
        
        jims2020 on 02/01/2024 - 21:51
        
        @callum9999: If you are not a Catholic, you shouldn't be too worried about my statement that Roman Catholicism is a heresy and not Christian - wonder why it you would be worried?
        
        I can see why you think you don't fit into any of the categories of sinners the Bible mentions because you live in your self-righteousness. I have provided the proof - the verses that clearly mention the unrighteous will not enter the Kingdom of God. I am not going to coach you to read and understand straightforward literature. I have fulfilled the burden of proof by citing the verses relevant to the topic.
        
        I can see how you have selective memory - not a biggie. Will see you at the next Christianity-related conversation and start on a fresh page, lol!
        
        callum9999 on 02/01/2024 - 22:04
        
        @jims2020: I'm "worried" because the entire basis for this conversation was discussing what Christianity does/has done. You unilaterally declaring that 1.3 billion Christians - over half the number who identify as Christian worldwide - are actually not "real Christians" interferes with that.
        
        I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "sin", so of course I don't think I fit into any of those categories. That's irrelevant however, as we're discussing what the bible says - not whether I believe it or not. There's a difference between saying "the unrighteous" won't go to heaven and "no human" (which is what you claimed) will go to heaven. It doesn't even make sense - why bother practicing the religion at all if there's no way to avoid Hell no matter what you do?
        
        Huh? You also cannot remember it so how am I the one with "selective memory"? Or was that just a lame attempt at trying to insult me because you don't like how aggressive I've been? (Which would be fair - my frustration with the way you're attempting to argue your case has caused me to write a few insulting things that, although I think are accurate, were unnecessary - my apologies)
        
        eman resu on 01/01/2024 - 17:14
        
        @The Wololo Wombat: You refer to Christianity as if its a monolith. Which Christianity are you talking about? My GF's xtianity is different than yours. Same as Islam, which Muslim orthodox are you referring to? If it is the Sunni, which school of though? Which regional variance.
        
        This is all important as your attempt to generalise is foolish. For example if you want to say Men have power over women as set in Muslim countries like Saudi and Nigeria. Then how do you explain the female prime Ministers of Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh.
        
        Almost Banned on 01/01/2024 - 19:59
        
        @The Wololo Wombat: Are you quoting the story of the woman taken in adultery as proof that Christ did away with capital punishment for everyone and everything?
        Because I certainly don't read it that way - and I don't think anyone else reasonably can.
        Perhaps you can compare it to Rom. 13
- bkksam on 01/01/2024 - 10:32
  
  -2
  
  Published 4 April 2019
HojuGuy on 18/01/2024 - 13:53

I'm flying back to Seoul for work. I flew Air Brunei last time. Once was enough with a I had a 12-hour layover.

This was posted 3 months 27 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Royal Brunei: Melbourne to Seoul $676 Return with 20kg Luggage (Feb-June '24) @ Google Flights

Referral Links

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals