That was Arthur Caldwell, who was leader of the Labor opposition (and never became prime minister of Aust). One of the great successes of Gough Whitlam was to completely rid his party of that backward xenophobic protectionist anti-immigration rhetoric. So much so, that these days most people associate such views and the “white Australia policy” with the LNP, not Labor.
shepherdless
JoinedPosts by shepherdless
-
15
How many wrongs make a right?
by eyeuse2badub incame across this little gem while my wife was "digging for bible gems" in her weekly meeting preparation.
nothing new but i gently pointed it out to her as a reminder that bible reading can be hazardous to your mental health!.
do 2 (or 3, or 4) wrongs, make a right?
-
-
-
27
Contradictions!
by Freedom rocks inquite regularly at meetings jws mocked worldly people and apostates(anyone who had left the "truth") for saying the bible contradicts itself when it is in complete harmony from beginning to end apparently.
can anyone point out some of the contradictions they know of?
they used to laugh at the fact people on the doors would say the bible contradicts itself and when they asked the householder to show them where, they couldn't..
-
-
shepherdless
This is an amusing video on bible contradictions:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
Gives a pretty good list, too.
-
12
Request for Australian research: ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in 1941
by JW83 ini am planning on revisiting my (academic) research into the banning of jws in australia in 1941, and was wondering if anyone would have contacts i could interview?
this is obviously a long shot (and it may be children/grandchildren) but i thought it may be worth a shot!.
i am an ex-jw and academic historian, you can see my former published work on jws here: http://www.flinders.edu.au/sabs/shir/our-research/research-journals/fjhp/2008.cfm.
-
-
shepherdless
In case you do not have a copy, here is a link to the 1943 High Court case where they applied to have the relevant regulations held unconstitutional, on religious freedom grounds.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1943/12.html?context=1;query=jehovahs%20witnesses;mask_path=au/cases/cth/HCA
It is quite a complicated case; a few parts of some regulations were held unconstitutional. I think that for practical purposes, though, the Borg lost.
Good luck with your research project.
-
18
My Reflections On a Year of Freedom
by Saethydd inin late may 2017, i told my parents how i really felt about the religion they had raised me in, and by early june i was out of their house.
i've done a lot since then.
i let my hair and beard grow out a bit.
-
-
shepherdless
Brilliant!
-
-
-
shepherdless
Good to hear, Holden.
Been pretty flat out myself, but doing fine.
-
24
Elon Musk causing an uproar on Twitter
by Tallon inelon musk has called one of the thai cave rescue divers a 'paedo' on twitter.. this could prove to be a very costly post should the diver sue him for defamation.. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/15/elon-musk-british-diver-thai-cave-rescue-pedo-twitter.
-
-
shepherdless
Elon Musk was born in South Africa and moved to Canada when he was a teenager.
Reading between the lines, it seems he is coming under extreme financial pressure, and while this has been happening, he has been saying some strange things to journalists. I am pretty sure where this is all heading.
-
3
RC in Carolinas USA
by loneranger inattendance on sunday averaged about 5600...32 baptized.
(about 0.57% or .0057).
-
-
shepherdless
Thanks for update. Do you know how the attendance compared to previous years?
-
40
Selloff update Melbourne Australia
by jonahstourguide ini've posted this here so all visitors to this site can see info relating to the great expansion.. the kealba kingdom hall in st albans will be sold.
perhaps worth around au1.4 million dollars.
on two blocks of suburban land with off street parking.
-
-
shepherdless
Gerry, this is from 3 years ago, but here are five more for you.
Three (3) Kingdom Halls in the suburbs of Adelaide SA sold, plus two (2) more closed, as referred to in the following article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-09/sale-of-jehovah-witnesses-halls-an-expansion-plan/6533544
I love the beginning of the article:
Adelaide's Jehovah's Witness community says the sale of three places of worship is not in response to dwindling attendances but is instead part of an expansion plan.
The two being closed down are in Ceduna and Cummins. Because of location, those ones would have had negligible land value.
Separately, I have a suspicion (but I don't know), that another rural congregation, Katanning WA, may have closed. There is probably an easy way to check, but I don't know how.
EDIT: Gerry, I see you beat me to it.
-
-
-
shepherdless
I think stuckinarut2 is referring to this baptismal talk:
-
169
Universal sovereignty on trial
by Factfulness ini just had a thought of clarity regarding the jw explanation for this doctrine.
they explain that satan challenged god regarding his right to rule.
god failed to prove his right to rule.
-
-
shepherdless
I have struggled to get the time to get back to this thread. I know it is old, but I said I would respond.
The background is that 17 days earlier in this thread, SBF said:
This supposes that physical material is the fundamental component of reality. This is the dominant view in our time, but it is not the only way of seeing the world. An alternative is the view that consciousness is fundamental and that we create the world through our perception.
and
I think there is growing support for the idea that consciousness is basic to the universe itself and does not just arise magically in the brain from nowhere.
He adds a video from Donald Hoffman, who apparently has a Ph.D in "quantative psychology" from M.I.T. For those who wonder what that means, here is what Wikipedia says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_psychology
I saw the video and said this, in part:
Hoffman then uses something equivalent to a "god of the gaps" argument. He says in effect that science can't explain as yet how neurons in the brain produce consciousness. He then proposes to turn it all on his head and start with consciousness as central to the universe, derive new laws of Physics, and hopes to mathematically re-derive concepts such as string theory and quantum mechanics. (He mentions those terms, but I wonder if he even knows what they mean.) In the process, some impressive images and videos are shown, but absolutely no maths, observations or science is used to back this idea up in any way, whatsoever.
SBF responds with two more videos frm Donald Hoffman, and stated in part:
His academic credentials appear impressive. Are you really confident you understand quantum mechanics and string theory better than he does?
I responded in part:
That is a red herring; I didn't claim to. (In fact I don't understand "string theory" at all.) Hoffman tossed those terms out very flippantly in the first video. Hence I wondered.
SBF responded:
It is not a red herring because you critiqued Hoffman’s use of language in terms which implied that he either did not understand what he was talking about or that he was misleading his audience in the way he was using scientific terms. In order for you to be able to make that judgement you would need to understand the terms at least as well as he does. Otherwise how would you know that he misused the language?
There is other stuff in this thread I would deal with, but I don't have the time.
I do not have to prove that I have equal or superior knowledge of either string theory and quantum mechanics, before I am allowed to wonder if he knows what they mean. I also pointed out why I wondered.
Likewise:
1. If a financial advisor told me that he had a foolproof scheme that would double my money every three years, I would be entitled to wonder whether it was legit. I am allowed to "wonder" about the legitimacy of the scheme, irrespective of whether I myself was a qualified economist, merchant banker, etc. I don't have to prove I can match the financial advisor's knowledge before I am allowed to "wonder".
2. If I went to see a lawyer about a fence dispute with my neighbour, and the lawyer kept mentioning Magna Carta but without connecting it to the context of the fencing obligations, I don't need to be a Professor of Constitutional Law before I am allowed to "wonder" whether this lawyer knows what he/she is talking about.
We do not know what expertise Donald Hoffman has in either quantum mechanics or string theory. He is a "popular science author", according to Wikipedia, and he certainly talks a good game. However, there is nothing in his academic background to suggest that he has any expertise in these fields whatsoever. So, without knowing what his actual level of knowledge, how could I, or anyone else, demonstrate "confident... [we] understand quantum mechanics and string theory better than he does". Does that meant nobody can ever comment?
Also, by your logic, SBF, unless you can demonstrate that your actual level of knowledge is better than mine, you have no right to question me on the topic. (I stress that that is not my position, but it IS the logical consequence of your logic.)