Jump to content

TheWorldNewsOrg

“Apocalyptic Flooding”: Stunning Images As Venice Endures 2nd Highest Tide In History...

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TheWorldNewsOrg -
admin -
3
303

Top Posters


Recommended Posts


Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      A man walks in the flooded St. Mark's Square during the high-water (Acqua Alta) alert in Venice yesterday. Photo: Miguel Medina/AFP
       
      Three quarters of Venice was underwater yesterday as violent storms swept across Italy.
      The first high water of the autumn hit Venice Monday and emergency sirens blared across the lagoon city yesterday as tourists were evacuated from the centre.
      75% of the city centre was underwater, officials said, after high tides and stormy weather caused waters in the canal-ringed city to reach historic high levels.
      Yesterday visitors were barred from an inundated St. Mark's Square and police carried children to safety as the "acqua alta" (high water) passed the 110 cm above sea level mark - at which citizens are alerted to potential danger – and then kept rising.
      https://www.thelocal.it/20181030/tourists-evacuated-as-venice-flooding-reaches-historic-levels
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      ROME — The Venice Film Festival’s independently run Venice Days section, modeled on the Cannes Directors’ Fortnight, has unveiled a lineup that emphasizes first-time and female filmmakers, with 10 of the 11 competition titles slated for world premieres.
      The accent on “female creativity,” as artistic director Giorgio Gosetti put it, is given by 7 women directors in the 19-title official selection, which is more than one third. Venice Days programmer Sylvain Auzou joked that the selection provides a positive counterpoint to the Cannes fest, which has been criticised in recent years for allegedly favouring male auteurs.
      Venice Days includes new short films by acclaimed Japanese director Naomi Kawase, who was recently on the Cannes jury, and American director Crystal Moselle, whose documentary “The Wolfpack” won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance in 2015. These shorts are part of Venice Days’ Women’s Tales Project, sponsored by Miu Miu, the women’s fashion brand owned by Prada.
      At the Rome presser Gosetti announced that within Women’s Tales events they will announce winners of a new prize launched by Italy’s documakers association Doc.it dedicated to international documentaries centered around female creativity and entrepreneurship with an Italian element.
      The opener, in competition, will be “The War Show,” a video-diary/road movie chronicling the civil war in Syria, co-directed by Syrian pro-democracy activist Obaidah Zytoon. Starting in 2011, she often crossed the border from Turkey into the Syrian war zone. The other director of “War Show” is Andreas Dalsgaard, from Finland.
      Italian competition entries include “Indivisible,” (pictured), directed by Edoardo De Angelis, about teenage conjoined-twin sisters with beautiful voices who come from the suburbs of Naples and support their family as a performing act.
      Also from Italy, which features prominently this year, is “Worldly Girl,” by first-timer Marco Danieli, set amid the Italian Jehovah’s Witnesses community.
      Launching from Venice Days from Iceland will be “Heartstone,” a coming-of-ager set in a fishing village by first-timer Guomundur Arnar Guomundsson; from Australia there is 1980’s set kidnap thriller “Hounds of Love,” by Ben Young, who is also making his feature film debut.
      Croatian first-timer Hana Music is coming with dark and erotic family drama “Quit Staring At My Plate”; Filipino helmer Eduardo Roy Jr. (“Baby Factory,” “Quick Change”) will bring “Pamilya Ordinaryo,” about how a young teen couple hustling for  survival on the Manila streets deal with the kidnapping of their one-month-old child.
      Rounding out the competition from Colombia is “Guilty Men,” described in the press notes as a “contemporary Western” set against the backdrop of corruption and brutal politics; “Polina” a ballet epic co-directed by prominent French dancer/choreographer Angelin Preljocaj and his wife Valerie Muller; “Sami Blood,” a look at 1930’s racism against the Sami people in the North of Sweden, directed by first-timer Amanda Kernell; and illegal immigrants romancer “The Road To Mandalay,” by Taiwan-based Burmese helmer Midi Z (“Ice Poison,” “City of Jade”).
      Multihyphenate Canadian provocateur Bruce LaBruce (“Gerontophilia,” “Pierrot Lunaire”) will preside over the jury that will award the Venice Days Award worth Euros 20,000 ($22,000) to the top competition title. Competition entries will also vie for the section’s audience award, while all first works are eligible for Venice’s Luigi De Laurentiis nod for best first work across all the Venice fest sections.
      The 12th edition of Venice Days will run August 31-September 10.
      VENICE DAYS LINEUP
      “The War Show,” Obaidah Zytoon, Andreas Dalsgaard (Denmark, Finland): opener. In competition.
      COMPETITION
      “Heartstone,” Guomundur Arnar Guomundsson (Iceland, Denmark)
      “Hounds of Love,” Ben Young (Australia)
      “Indivisible,” Edoardo De Angelis (Italy)
      “Quit Staring at My Plate,” Hana Jusic (Croatia, Denmark)
      “Pamilya Ordinaryo,” Eduardo Roy, Jr. (Philippines)
      “Guilty Men,” Ivan D. Gaona (Colombia)
      “Polina,” Valerie Muller, Angelin Preljocaj (France)
      “Worldly Girl,” Marco Danieli (Italy)
      “Sami Blood,” Amanda Kernell (Sweden, Denmark, Norway)
      “The Road to Mandalay,” Midi Z (Myanmar, Taiwan, China, France, Germany)
      WOMEN’S TALES PROJECT (shorts), in collaboration with Prada’s Miu Miu Label
      “Seed,” Naomi Kawase (Italy, Japan)
      “That One Day,” Crystal Moselle (Italy, U.S.)
      SPECIAL EVENTS
      “Always Shine,” Sophia Takal (U.S.)
      “Coffee,” Cristiano Bortone (Italy, Belgium, China)
      “Il Profumo Del Tempo Delle Favole,” Mauro Caputo (Italy)
      “Rocco,” Thierry Demaiziere, Alban Teurlai (France)
      “Vangelo,” Pippo Delbono (Italy, Belgium)
      “You Never Had It – An Evening with Bukowski,” Matteo Borgardt (U.S., Mexico, Italy)
      http://variety.com/2016/film/festivals/venice-days-lineup-women-directors-prada-1201823083/
  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,509
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,507
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry.  
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.