Thanks, HappyDad! My ignorance is exposed! I thought cars and trucks had had VIN numbers from the very beginning. Did they have any other kind of identifying numbers that could be used to research historical ownership and/or manufacturers' records?
under the radar
JoinedPosts by under the radar
-
26
Has Rutherford's 16-cylinder Cadillac been found?
by under the radar ini ran across this episode of jay leno's garage on youtube today.
all i know is it seems very similar to j f rutherford's much-vaunted 16-cylinder cadillac.
watch the episode and let us know what you think.
-
-
-
26
Has Rutherford's 16-cylinder Cadillac been found?
by under the radar ini ran across this episode of jay leno's garage on youtube today.
all i know is it seems very similar to j f rutherford's much-vaunted 16-cylinder cadillac.
watch the episode and let us know what you think.
-
-
under the radar
If any of you WT history buffs happen to know the VIN number of Rutherford's Cadillac(s), please share it. I understand he had two. VIN numbers would make it a lot easier to track them down, or at least it would give a researcher a shot at it.
-
26
Has Rutherford's 16-cylinder Cadillac been found?
by under the radar ini ran across this episode of jay leno's garage on youtube today.
all i know is it seems very similar to j f rutherford's much-vaunted 16-cylinder cadillac.
watch the episode and let us know what you think.
-
-
under the radar
I ran across this episode of Jay Leno's Garage on YouTube today. All I know is it seems very similar to J F Rutherford's much-vaunted 16-cylinder Cadillac. Watch the episode and let us know what you think. Either way, it's a very cool car. I'd love to see it in person one day. Oh well, maybe the next time I'm in California.
Jay Leno's Garage episode with 16-cylinder Cadillac
-
31
A year since I have been back
by Lee Marsh ina year ago i came back to jwd.
the 2 years before that.
when covid stated, i was diagnosed with colon cancer.
-
-
under the radar
So sorry you had to go through all that, especially alone. But I'm very glad the outcome was so good. Despite it all, you were fortunate they caught things when they did. Here's hoping you don't have to go through anything like that again. We're all pulling for you.
-
4
Jehovah's Witness Sends Alex Murdaugh Telling Text on Day of Murders
by Tahoe injehovah's witness sends alex murdaugh telling text on day of murders.
-
-
under the radar
Wow! Is this the way JWs count time now, by sending out text messages? Hmmm...
-
43
Sunday January 15 is my 76th birthday. I answer some of your questions.
by Terry inhappy birthday 2 me!!.
sunday is my 76th birthday and i know that you want to know how it "feels" to have outlived my usefulness, to have lost my natural beauty (being reduced to wrinkles and flab), and constantly walking into a room not knowing why i'm there.
you also are curious as to how i can continue to find a reason to live since none of my kids think my opinions have any possible value, most of my facebooks friends i wouldn't recognize if i tripped over them on my way into starbucks, and my monthly expenditure on bird treats exceeds u.s. spending on the military.
-
-
under the radar
Happy Birthday, Terry! So glad to hear from you and get to listen to some of your musical efforts.
Just wondering, do you still visit the coffee shop and debate with that infernal bird? Still ride your bike there?
-
-
-
under the radar
As usual, there is a lot more to the story than just what is reported on the news. It would be interesting to know if that restraining order sought by the union was ever granted. Also, does anyone know why the couple was no longer welcome at the Kingdom Hall? Were they just weirdos, or were one or both of them disfellowshipped?
JW theology does seem to attract more than its fair share of fringe nuts. Some seek medical help, but I suspect most don't. That said, if I had had the lithium concession at a certain congregation I used to go to, I would be a wealthy man. Just sayin'...
-
50
Are the teachings of JW—consistent?
by Fisherman ini would belief so but if you can point something out, it can be discussed.. i don’t mean what jw taught in the past that they later realized was not correct and amended.
—unless you think and can show something like that is relevant.. i’ve spoken to a lot of believers from different religions.
i don’t want to bash any religion here under this topic but their beliefs are inconsistent and their reasons are sophistry and made up and grounded on circular reasoning.
-
-
under the radar
I'm not going to enter a debate with anyone, including Fisherman, but his response illustrates one of the main reasons some people disdain organized religion of any flavor. He says that regardless of Biblical precedent to the contrary on certain issues, "those are the beliefs and religious practices of JW and a person that doesn’t live by those standards of conduct cannot be a JW."
Ah, that's the rub. The standard some endorse is that one must accept whatever the leaders of a certain group teach, whether or not those teachings conform to clear principles and precedents in the Bible. In fact, though, It simply doesn't matter if the reasons for certain beliefs seem logical to you as an individual or you feel that a "reasonable moral argument" might be made for or against something. If you accept that the Bible is the final authority, you cannot justify adopting any belief that contradicts it on the grounds that you "feel" things should be different.
For example, beliefs about IVF, pro and con, tend to be highly emotional and deeply held, but in the light of the brother-in-law marriage arrangement, I don't see how one could reasonably argue that it is morally wrong. To do so seems to be a prime example of "going beyond what is written."
That said, I fully endorse the right of anyone to believe as he or she sees fit. I only object when some decide that their view is the only correct one and they seek to impose their beliefs on others by demanding conformity and threatening ostracism to any who might dare dissent. That seems the height of self-righteous arrogance.
-
21
Keep telling yourself that!
by Lost in the fog inin the latest copy of the elders textbook someone kindly made available to us on this website, i see that "independently organized meetings for spiritual feeding" are still not allowed.
no wonder because independent research would let the scales fall from the eyes.. the gb still insisting that they are guided by the (always lower case) holy spirit and the bible!!
not that the rank and file members need the bible or holy spirit themselves because they are fed through meetings, conventions, assemblies, jw broadcasting and the publications.
-
-
under the radar
Back in the late 70s or early 80s, I was a member of Mensa, a loose association for those who score above a certain point on standard IQ tests. I'm living proof that they're not all geniuses and high-brows, or even deep thinkers. Anyway, membership allowed you to join various special interest groups. I don't recall their exact terminology. One such group was for JWs, and since I was a believer at the time, I signed up. Turns out it was a discussion group led by a guy who got way, way deep into the meaning of the original languages of the Bible and their modern interpretations. Some of the members' opinions and ideas were pretty far out there, but none had any tinges of apostasy. They published a newsletter that basically summarized their discussions. All that back and forth was over my head, and frankly, not that interesting.
I showed some of those newsletters to a visiting Circuit Overseer one time. He frowned and said good JWs shouldn't be wasting time doing that kind of research and theorizing. It could lead to misunderstandings or questioning the Society. He strongly discouraged it. Those newsletters and the very few Mensa meetings I attended were above my head and rather dull anyway, so I soon let my membership lapse.
I am no longer a believer at all, but it does seem that the Borg ignores Jesus' statement about "...where two or three are gathered...". It does not say, "...where two or three are gathered, if organized by the older men of Jerusalem...".
-
50
Are the teachings of JW—consistent?
by Fisherman ini would belief so but if you can point something out, it can be discussed.. i don’t mean what jw taught in the past that they later realized was not correct and amended.
—unless you think and can show something like that is relevant.. i’ve spoken to a lot of believers from different religions.
i don’t want to bash any religion here under this topic but their beliefs are inconsistent and their reasons are sophistry and made up and grounded on circular reasoning.
-
-
under the radar
A few inconsistencies that come to mind are the two witness rule, their blood policy, and their stance against IVF and gestational surrogacy.
The Borg requires two witnesses to child sexual abuse before even reporting the accusation to secular authorities for a proper investigation, unless the legal department tells them it's required by law. On the other hand, purely circumstantial evidence, such as staying overnight under "improper" circumstances, is considered proof enough to take judicial action on the assumption that horizontal hanky-panky must have taken place.
Blood transfusions involving plasma or "whole blood" are absolutely forbidden, though almost every single component of blood and most blood fractions can be used separately. It's like saying ham sandwiches are forbidden, but you can have all the bread, ham, tomato, lettuce, and condiments you want as long as you eat them separately.
Even if one concedes that blood transfusions are prohibited "in principle," there are specific examples in the Bible where people actually ate unbled meat in an emergency and received only a virtual "slap on the wrist" as punishment. Accepting a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood anyway. Regardless, the Bible clearly shows that saving a life justifies breaking the rules. Jesus himself used the example of violating the Sabbath in order to save an animal's life, confirming that it was acceptable to do so. Having one actually die in order to acknowledge the sanctity of life is ludicrous and contradictory. It elevates the symbol above the reality. Saving a life is more important that obeying any specific law, just as life itself is far more sacred than something that merely symbolizes it.
The Borg's blood policy is one example of taking the principle behind a Jewish dietary law and turning it into an eternal law from God that applies to modern medical procedures that are not in fact equivalent anyway. But then they go to the opposite extreme and completely ignore explicit Biblical precedent and impose their own interpretation of what constitutes adultery when it comes to IVF and surrogacy. They equate the donation of sperm or human eggs from anyone other than one's spouse with adultery. The same with a woman who bears a child not biologically related to her for another couple. This completely ignores the brother-in-law marriage laws of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). In those days, if a married man died without an heir, his brother (or other close relative) was required to impregnate the dead man's widow. Obviously, this involved actual sexual intercourse, not merely the clinical transfer of biological material from one willing person to another. The child born of this brother-in-law procedure was considered the legitimate heir of the dead man. The act was not considered adultery in any sense. In fact, there were humiliating penalties for not complying with this law. As for surrogacy, one need only consider that Abraham's wife Sarah had him impregnate Hagar (her hand maiden) so that she (Sarah) could have a son. This, too, involved actual intercourse but was not considered adultery.
This clearly shows that sperm or egg cells are not, in and of themselves, sacred. Otherwise, why were men's bodies designed to naturally and automatically dispose of excess semen while they sleep? And why were women's bodies designed to naturally and automatically dispose of unfertilized eggs during their monthly cycles? Adultery is about unfaithfulness to one's mate, usually involving deceit and disloyalty, not merely the transfer of biological material. In my opinion, IVF procedures and surrogacy constitute the greatest gift one person can give another. All parties involved have given willing, informed consent. Based on the principle and precedent of brother-in-law marriage, how can that be called adultery?