professor kevin barrett is not exactly the most trusted commentator you could find, but that, of course, just maybe because, there are people who want his views on 9/11 to be ignored.. anyway he's advanced a theory that the missing malaysian airlines plane was remotely hi-jacked.
in the absence of other evidence, it just maybe what happened.
to consider whether it did happen, we need to ask why it may have been hijacked?
Did anyone see 60 minutes tonight? There was a big story all about US satellites and the Chinese governments efforts to shoot them down. A prominent US General made it very clear that they can track even a very small fishing boat anywhere on the planet.
Doesn't it seem strange that they couldn't track a huge airliner? Something just doesn't seem right.
i have been mulling over the options that the wt has to take in regard to child abuse.
in my mind there are the following ones:.
1. overhaul their entire system, and apologize to all abuse victims.
LisaRose: That is a very good idea Orphan Crow, but I don't know if anyone in the ex JW community has the expertise or ability to do that.
That is a good idea! Although many of us ex JWs may not have the expertise and ability specific to advising JW children abuse victims, we all know the witnesses more than most of the professionals do. I and many others for example can tell what they are going to say before they open their mouths. Perhaps some kind of a melding of knowledge between the professionals and apostates could be as effective as the Australian Royal Commission has been thus far.
a catholic forum has a discussion thread: "jehovah witness now appear with the royal commission".. i have made the comment before that dr. applewhite's appearance in support of the jws is not surprising if you consider that the royal commissions' findings will impact the structure of the cathoilc church as well.
the catholic church has a vested interest in the jws' hearing - if the jws are forced to change their organizational structure, so will the catholics.. the following post is an excellent discussion on the similarities and differences between the catholic church and the jws structure.
http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=174461.
amazing world we live in... this makes the "last days" doctrine look bad...https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27990-ebola-vaccine-success-race-is-now-on-to-protect-those-at-risk/
i know that in english there are better pages exposing the organization, but here i updated the page (in spanish) with an article untitled "la organizacion jehovista oculta el abuso sexual" (the jehovist organization hides sexual abuse) based on the last news on "child abuse" in australia, and quoting watchtower's articles in which you can note how in this organization, the penitent pedophiles are in better position than the "apostates" who denounce the organization's absurdities .. http://jehovismo.com/.
for instance, i quoted the watchtower 1997 jan 1 p.29, where it is said that it is permitted for the penitent pedophile to preach door to door:.
if he seems to be repentant, he will be encouraged to make spiritual progress, share in the field service, even have parts in the theocratic ministry school (the watchtower, january 1, 1997).
However, we don't read such strong words against pedophiles in the Organization.
That's to be expected. From the WBTS's perspective, pedophiles in a lot of cases toe the line and don't threaten the Borg's ideology and if the pedophiles as a group get focused on too much the WTBTS will come up with new light on how to deal with them that can make everyone happy. They don't give a dam about the children the only thing that concerns them is membership and a continuation of existing revenue streams.
will this rc turn out to be the beginnings of a watershed time in wbts history?.
do you have any thoughts regarding this?.
"Will this RC turn out to be the beginnings of a watershed time in WBTS history?"
Who knows in Canada and the U.S.? I have been watching the usual media news outlets here looking for a mention of the Australian Royal Commission and have heard nothing. There is still a lot more testimony coming so maybe it will change. But that's just my experience so far and I don't have any contact with any witnesses who are still in. So others who have contact with immediate family who are dubs will no doubt see things differently.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
amazing world we live in... this makes the "last days" doctrine look bad...https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27990-ebola-vaccine-success-race-is-now-on-to-protect-those-at-risk/
It is an amazing world and Kudos to those researchers who came up with the vaccine it's to bad there wasn't a whole lot of money to be made by developing this vaccine or it would have been found earlier and more people would have been saved the ravages of EBOLA. But at least it's available and affordable for everyone who needs it now.
More lives saved by science in these worsening last days.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
It's kind of like a proof. One of our illustrious Canadian Prime Ministers said it best I think
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jeanchreti145285.html
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
It's all about the wording. Labeling oneself an atheist is unscientific but it would also be unscientific for someone else not to label someone an atheist if that's what indeed they are.
I prefer in this one case not to label myself but even by doing that I am still technically labeling myself as being unlabeled.
