Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
I don't get my Continuing Education Credits from 'Popular Science.' Sorry. I get my Con-ed from reliable medical journals. As I said, there are definite risks in everything - INCLUDING the "Blood Substitutes." There is a risk every time someone starts an IV, did you know that? There are risks when blood is drawn for testing. There are risks with Foley Catheters. There are GREAT risks in casts. Unfortunately no one has answered my questions, though. Care to enlighten us?
I don't get my Continuing Education Credits from 'Popular Science.' Sorry. I get my Con-ed from reliable medical journals. As I said, there are definite risks in everything - INCLUDING the "Blood Substitutes." There is a risk every time someone starts an IV, did you know that? There are risks when blood is drawn for testing. There are risks with Foley Catheters. There are GREAT risks in casts. Unfortunately no one has answered my questions, though. Care to enlighten us?
Did you not see the comment I made, that the article referenced both reports and medical journals? I get my continuing education from a variety of sources INLCUDING periodicals. I dont believe we should limit ourselves to one source.
Yes there are definite risks in everything. WHich is precisely the reason many people choose NOT to receive blood. If the risks are there with both treatments, why not choose based on preference and research?
What about marrow transfusions for Leukemia? What about Platelets for the Hemopheliac? Insulin for the IDDM or DKA?
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%).
I'm sorry, MoraleOfficer, I didnt see your questions.
I would personally not accept any blood parts, including marrow, for my own medical treatment or the treatment of my children. The successfull non-blood treatment of Leukemia has made leaps and bounds over the last several years. My own little cousin was successfully treated for the disease years ago. She was two. She is now a married woman of 25. Her disease may re-emerge, certainly. But she's adamant in her faith and has no fear of that.
As far as blood fractions, such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations-it is up to the individual conscience of each Christian what will be his stand. There have been a variety of successful treatments for those who suffer from this illness among Jehovah's Witnesses and they must use their conscience what constitutes a mis-use of blood in these cases.
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar w/ the initials IDDM or DKA
Last edited by alicenevada; 10-17-2008 at 09:41 AM..
Please show us where Paul says a woman can preach?
Deacons DO NOT PREACH. Deacons SERVE not PREACH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
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.
Even your own translation doesnt show that she was PREACHING.
Read the greek translation for 'diakonos'
It means 'to serve'. TODAY they have deacons doing other duties.
Women were to teach YOUNGER women. Not men.
Your translation is also incorrect as the Apostles are FIRST then Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers.
Paul didn't come inventing new things as he was teaching from the Old Testament. Jews didn't permit women to teach other men but only younger women. Paul was teaching the SAME THING.
prostatis - pros-tä'-tēs
a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources
She was ASSIGNED to Paul to help him with resources, and other things he needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
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.
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.
What about marrow transfusions for Leukemia? What about Platelets for the Hemopheliac? Insulin for the IDDM or DKA?
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%).
I would just like to add a personal note to my other comments.
It happens that I recently spent 6.5 hours on an operating table getting a 7 disc scraping and fusion. Without the blood I received I would be dead.
I would just like to add a personal note to my other comments.
It happens that I recently spent 6.5 hours on an operating table getting a 7 disc scraping and fusion. Without the blood I received I would be dead.
Thank God for someone else's blood.
Regards
DL
How do you know you would be dead? How do you know the doctor would not have been even MORE careful knowing you don't accept blood and resorted to even more advanced and superior methods?
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.
Not only in my case but all the churches are doing the same.
It seems that no one can or should live by 2000+ year old policy.
Even your own translation doesnt show that she was PREACHING.
Read the greek translation for 'diakonos'
It means 'to serve'. TODAY they have deacons doing other duties.
Women were to teach YOUNGER women. Not men.
Your translation is also incorrect as the Apostles are FIRST then Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers.
Paul didn't come inventing new things as he was teaching from the Old Testament. Jews didn't permit women to teach other men but only younger women. Paul was teaching the SAME THING.
prostatis - pros-tä'-tēs
a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources
She was ASSIGNED to Paul to help him with resources, and other things he needed.
There is nothing in any translation that shows that she wasn't preaching.
In 1 Timothy 4:6, Timothy is referred to as a Diakonos, and clearly taught. So there goes that argument of yours.
Further, The first deacons of the Jerusalem church are mentioned by name (v.5) and later on we find two of these men debating and evangelizing, which probably included some teaching. Both men also performed great wonders and miraculous signs (Acts 6:8; 8:6), but I hardly think that this means that we should assume that New Testament deacon responsibilities include doing miracles.
In Timothy, the office of Diakonos was clearly taking the role of what priests are expected to do today. After all, Paul only outlines two positions: Bishop and Diakonos. Since the word 'priest' doesn't seem to enter into Paul's pastoral letters, does that mean we should have priests today?
And, given that there was no gender variant in the Greek word for several centuries more, we know that it was a formal church office, not a gender-specific role.
Getting back to Phoebe, It COULD simply mean that Phoebe is involved in the activity of serving the church of Cenchrea. But why mention a church that is 600 miles from Rome? How is Phoebe serving her local church by coming to Rome? Why not say that she is a servant "FROM the church of Cenchrea"? If she is simply serving in a general way, not as an official of the church, why not simply call her a servant of Christ or a servant of Paul? Why is Paul instructing the entire congregation, not only the women, to do what is required by her?
Further, why would he send a woman to do such important business, far away from the protection of her family? So, in short, my reading of the text in question is far more straightforward than yours--which requires a great deal of convoluted interpretation. So I find it kind of odd, given that you're supporting the position that the meaning of the Bible should be very straightforward and obvious.
One more thing, since you opened a can of worms and claim that Paul was teaching from the Old Testament. If he were indeed teaching from the Old Testament and thereby avows its correctness in all things, then how do you manage to sidestep the laws outlined in Leviticus. After all, if Paul claims that all scripture is a gift from God, and that he almost certainly wrote these words before at least two of the Gospels were written, then what else can he be speaking about? So if you wear clothing made of two different materials, had pork chops last night, or enjoyed an all-you-can-eat lobsterfest recently, you're in deep trouble with the Lord.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you not see the comment I made, that the article referenced both reports and medical journals? I get my continuing education from a variety of sources INLCUDING periodicals. I dont believe we should limit ourselves to one source. 
Then you're following your own diet.
