Is there a Christian Church that follows scripture? (prophet, Jerusalem, gospels)

[Morale Officer]

Originally Posted by Miss Martha

Christian Church. No denomination. Sometimes called the Non-Denominational Christian Church.

The problem with this is that every church in the non-denominational denomination has different beliefs and rules, so, technically, you are talkinga bout your own church and not the denomination itself. I am one of the believers that not one of us has everything 100% correct.

Originally Posted by alicenavada

Blood is not a cure. It is an antiquated form of medicine that should have been rendered obsolete by now. Regardless, the fact that we are commanded to 'abstain from blood', certainly does not give us the permission to accept it into our veins. If we were told by a doctor to 'abstain' from alcohol, we wouldnt inject it into our veins instead. Clearly, fear of death is not reason to disobey God's command.

However, we do not blindly accept death when we are faced with it. We're not trying to be martyrs. Instead, we demand higer quality medical care than most, for this reason.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

You do recognize do you not that some blood disorders have as yet no substitute for transfusions?

In such a case, would you let your baby or child die?

Regards
DL

What about marrow transfusions for Leukemia? What about Platelets for the Hemopheliac? Insulin for the IDDM or DKA?

Originally Posted by alicenavada

A friend of mine had a pulmonary embolism and she did not take blood. She is still alive today, and incidentally she healed twice as quickly as someone who would have accepted it according to the doctor. There is no way a doctor can tell you tht blood will save your live for certain...or that refusal of it will result in your death.

Fundamentalist Christians have twisted and abused the Word of God, I heartily agree. Thankfull, I am not part of that group. But in my eyes, there is no twisting three simple words 'abstain from blood'. Blood has always been sacred in the eyes of God. So that is a commandment I have no desire to try to find a way around, as most of Christendom has done.

As far as 'alternatives' for blood, there really is no good alternative. There are temporary fixes, but they are not good. As a pre-hospital provider, I can give you boluses of Lactated Ringers or Normal Saline. The problem with this is that the blood is made up of so many different things. If you are in an accident and are bleeding out, all I can give you is LR or NS. The problem with LR and NS is that all it does is replace volume. It dilutes the platelets and can actually make the bleeding worse (and can actually reduce the Oxygen Saturation since it's diluting the RBCs). It also dilutes the RBC's which carry O2. Now, there are some substitues, that actually don't mix with blood. They more form an emulsion. These substitutes are not widely used. Yes, there are complications with blood products, but there are also complications with substitutes as with ANY medical procedure or drug. Unfortunately, there are no grarantees in the mortal world except death and taxes, and thanks to lawyers, you can sue anyone for anything, which is why all possible side effects are listed in the drug information, including death (which in some cases are EXTREMELY rare, like less than 0.001%).

[renriq02]

Either you go by the Word of God or you don't

In your case you're adding stuff that is not in the Bible.
If you want to 'add' stuff then you're only starting your own religion.
That's not call Christianity it's called something else.

You can't tell everyone that you're following the Atkins diet when all you eat is nothing but carbs. Then you're following your own diet.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

You should remember that those rightings were done at a time much different than today and based at a time when physical strength ruled by force.

Woman today is just as smart and just as dangerous as any man.

She no longer has to cow tow to men that in general abuse their privilege.

If men are so bright then why has nothing improved in spiritual maters in 2000 yrs. Perhaps it is they that should lead. We have sure ****ed up long enough. They could not do worse than men.

Regards
DL

[renriq02]

Believe me when I say they weren't Christians as that's against the Bible.

Are you now going to say that adulterers are Christians?
Are you now going to say that fornicators are Christians?

Murderers are NOT Christians.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I would remind you of our own Christian inquisition.

Regards
DL

[renriq02]

Lol You seriously need to read the Bible.

BTW the text that was written 2000 years ago were found to be the same.

Nice try.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Where do you get your information?

I am a white RC Canadian.

None can be sure what Jesus said and what was put in His mouth later.

I do recall the words-- who do they say I am--.

Sound like someone who is sure of himself to you?

If Jesus was God then I am sure we would have felt His presence much more firmly to this day.

I hope you are better at reading Him and building assumptions than you are with reading me.

Note how even modern interpretations can be wrong. Can 2000 yr old one's be wrong as well?

Regards
DL

[alicenevada]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Anecdotal experience is useful but unless you can show where a policy of non treatment is better than the system in place then you nor I are not qualified to change government policy. Like all governments, ours has to know where it is going to a fine degree before policy can be changed. This is what your church needs to do. Not deny services. This is the logical way to go. If your case is sound then the law changes. If not or not shown then you, in a secular society must conform or risk the law.

Remarks?

Regards
DL

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I have no idea what law you are referring to? There is no law that says a person must receive ANY medical treatment just because a doctor recommends it. Interestingly, if a doctor came up to you and told you that in order to save your child's life he would have to do extensive brain surgery immediately and your child could come out a vegetable, how many people would say 'do it now!'. No one. You want your child to have quality of life as well. You would demand a second opionion. You would do massive and immediate research to determine if this were absolutely the case. You would fight. That is what we do. Forget for a minute that we are following God's law when it comes to blood (a command that we cannot ignore if we call ourselves Christian).

So many people don't realize the risks of blood transfusions, many of which result from faulty screening and human error. Many people, including some on this board obviously, are not aware of the quality of non-blood solutions these days. One that 'popular science' reported on last year was touted as being 'better than blood' by almost everyone who experienced with it. These solutions were not invented for JW alone, but for the millions of people who have educated themselves on the side affects of blood transfusions and who are looking for something better. There are bloodless surgery centers everywhere...these were not brought into existence merely for the few million JW's who live in this or any other country. In addition, screening blood in times of war is sometimes impossible and deaths result when the wrong blood type or contaminated blood is administered. Blood, in such situations, is also scarce. So science will continue to push through until there is a permanant alternative. And we, as Jehovah's Witnesses, will simply reap the benefits of this.

[Morale Officer]

Originally Posted by alicenavada

So many people don't realize the risks of blood transfusions, many of which result from faulty screening and human error. Many people, including some on this board obviously, are not aware of the quality of non-blood solutions these days. One that 'popular science' reported on last year was touted as being 'better than blood' by almost everyone who experienced with it. These solutions were not invented for JW alone, but for the millions of people who have educated themselves on the side affects of blood transfusions and who are looking for something better. There are bloodless surgery centers everywhere...these were not brought into existence merely for the few million JW's who live in this or any other country. In addition, screening blood in times of war is sometimes impossible and deaths result when the wrong blood type or contaminated blood is administered. Blood, in such situations, is also scarce. So science will continue to push through until there is a permanant alternative. And we, as Jehovah's Witnesses, will simply reap the benefits of this.

You get your medical information from 'Popular Science' and not any medical journals?

[alicenevada]

Originally Posted by Morale Officer

You get your medical information from 'Popular Science' and not any medical journals?

I think you know as well as I do that 'popular science' is simply reporting current medical news. They did quote from both reports and journals in the article. I saved it on my other computer and will be glad to provide the link.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

I see it daily. One thing you never mentioned. Your own thoughts on the issue. This is the most important and you probably are so busy looking for biblical support that you forgot to search your own heart.

Logic is priceless.

Are women more stupid than men?. No.
Are they capable for the work? Yes.
Is there any reason to deny them? I find none.

Without looking at any scripture a decision can be reached. Nice if confirmation is there but no soul should be denied anything without good reason.

No soul should be discriminated against without good reason.

Remarks?

Regards
DL

Nice bit of jujitsu, but it really doesn't address my remarks. My point is very simple. Outside of the Decalogue, you can pretty much find one biblical passage to contradict another biblical passage. Whereas Paul apparently proscribes women preaching in one biblical passage, he evidently condones it elsewhere. Either you rigidly follow the six hundred or so requirements of Leviticus or you follow the theology of the New Law vs. the Old Law.

And my heart and soul are well-known to myself thanks. It would be arrogant to assume otherwise.

[Miss Martha]

Originally Posted by Morale Officer

The problem with this is that every church in the non-denominational denomination has different beliefs and rules, so, technically, you are talkinga bout your own church and not the denomination itself. I am one of the believers that not one of us has everything 100% correct.

As I stated before, the greatest problem with religion is that there are people in it. People can all look at one thing and come out with 6 different meanings of the same thing.

Every Non-Denominational Christian Church that I have been to believes in the Bible, nothing added, nothing taken away. That is not to say that they all interpreted scriptures the exact same way, but the NDCC (Just to shorten it) simply believes that God laid everything out well enough for us in the Bible and we do not need to add our own rules and regulations to it. And all pastors are humans, so they may be wrong on an issue or two.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by renriq02

Pulpit is one thing...serving for the Church is another.

I dont recall any deacons preaching...........

Deacons means servant. Also, it doesnt state that she is to lead anything.

1. You need to remember that Paul also writes

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

She can serve but isn't allowed to 'teach'.

A lot of people forget that Paul was Jewish. Jews DID NOT allow women to teach or to conduct ANY Priestly activities because of their monthly cycles.

You really didn't read my post. Here is the passage from 2 Timothy. I use Young's Literal Translation. Now, note that the correct usage here is actually "Ministrants."

8 Ministrants -- in like manner grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not given to filthy lucre, 9 having the secret of the faith in a pure conscience, 10 and let these also first be proved, then let them minister, being unblameable. 11 Women -- in like manner grave, not false accusers, vigilant, faithful in all things. 12 Ministrants -- let them be of one wife husbands; the children leading well, and their own houses, 13 for those who did minister well a good step to themselves do acquire, and much boldness in faith that is in Christ Jesus.


Now, let me show you the passage from Romans, Chapter 16:

1 And I commend you to Phebe our sister -- being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea -- 2 that ye may receive her in the Lord, as doth become saints, and may assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you -- for she also became a leader of many, and of myself.


Now. Was Paul inconsistent? He uses the same word in two different passage. The first lays out the office of Deacon/Ministrant in explicit terms. The second notes clearly that Phoebe was Deacon/Ministrant of Cenchrea, and was a leader of many, and of myself. If women are not supposed to teach or lead, then why this passage I bolded? Why did Paul submit himself to the leadership of a woman if he were so against women in the pulpit?

And this is just one contradiction among many. The faithful Christian prayerfully does his or her best to reconcile the differences in his or her own heart. But at the same time, it also means that one cannot simply read the Bible in a straightforward manner and say, "This is the absolute truth," for there will be another passage elsewhere that may very well say almost the complete opposite.