(2 Corinthians 4:7-18) 7 However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the power beyond what is normal may be God?s and not that out of ourselves. 8 We are pressed in every way, but not cramped beyond movement; we are perplexed, but not absolutely with no way out; 9 we are persecuted, but not left in the lurch; we are thrown down, but not destroyed. 10 Always we endure everywhere in our body the death-dealing treatment given to Jesus, that the life of Jesus may also be made manifest in our body. 11 For we who live are ever being brought face to face with death for Jesus? sake, that the life of Jesus may also be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 12 Consequently death is at work in us, but life in YOU. 13 Now because we have the same spirit of faith as that of which it is written: "I exercised faith, therefore I spoke," we too exercise faith and therefore we speak, 14 knowing that he who raised Jesus up will raise us up also together with Jesus and will present us together with YOU. 15 For all things are for YOUR sakes, in order that the undeserved kindness which was multiplied should abound because of the thanksgiving of many more to the glory of God. 16 Therefore we do not give up, but even if the man we are outside is wasting away, certainly the man we are inside is being renewed from day to day. 17 For though the tribulation is momentary and light, it works out for us a glory that is of more and more surpassing weight and is everlasting; 18 while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting.
shadow
JoinedPosts by shadow
-
3
Need Help With a Scripture
by Mary incan anyone tell me where that scripture is that says:
we are pressed in every way, but not without hope.............while we keep our minds, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen.
for the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting.
-
-
-
11
Two witness rule! What about 17 witnesses?
by gladtobefree inthe testimony of youths may be considered; it is up to .
the elders to determine if the testimony has the ring of .
truth.
-
-
shadow
If it is part of public record is it possible to scan and post? or is it available by some other means to the general public?
-
20
A BLOOD QUESTION
by Mary inok, i'd like your viewpoint on this.
i might be going in for surgery and of course with any surgery there's a chance that you might need a blood transfusion.
for obvious reasons, i think it would be better if i stored my own blood beforehand in case it was needed.
-
-
shadow
Actually remaining in a continuous circuit has also been abandoned. You may find this discussion on a forum apparently made for HLC members and other interested parties. One respondent voiced concern about how to explain this policy change, but was quickly squashed by others.
JW's may now have blood transported to another location, treated, returned and then re-infused as long as it is part of an ongoing therapy.
-
17
What would you do if........
by Puternut in......you had knowledge of an elder that is currently serving as an elder, and was a child molester?
and is now in good standing with his congregation.. curious,.
puternut
-
-
shadow
Are any court cases going in Washington? If possible to prove this, that WT still appoints known molestors in violation of their stated policy, would it be of any use to any ongoing litigation? Perhaps contact Love, Norris?
-
9
what is JW stand on bone marrow transplants?
by Dawn ini've been out for so many years and don't know the current "light" on this subject.
i tried searching the forum but didn't find recent links on this topic.
anyone out there know what the current "understanding" from the fine "slave" is ?
-
-
shadow
*** w84 5/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
ยท
Could a Christian accept a bone-marrow transplant, since blood is made in the marrow?Doctors perform most bone-marrow transplants by withdrawing some marrow from a donor (often a near relative) and then injecting or transfusing it into the sick patient. They hope that the marrow graft will reach the patient?s marrow cavities and later function normally. Usually this procedure is considered only in critical cases (such as aplastic anemia or acute leukemia) for there are acknowledged hazards in preparing a person for a marrow graft and in treating him afterward.
As the question itself notes, red blood cells are formed in the marrow of certain bones such as the ribs, sternum and pelvic bones. Hence, it is understandable why, in the light of the Bible?s prohibition on blood, the question arises whether a Christian could accept a graft of human bone marrow.
The Bible states clearly that God?s servants must ?abstain from blood.? (Acts 15:28, 29; Deuteronomy 12:15, 16) But, since red cells originate in the red bone marrow, do the Scriptures class marrow with blood? No. In fact, animal marrow is spoken of like any other flesh that could be eaten. Isaiah 25:6 says that God will prepare for his people a banquet that includes "well-oiled dishes filled with marrow." Normal slaughtering and drainage procedures never drain all blood cells from the marrow. Yet once a carcass is drained, then any of the tissue may be eaten, including the marrow.
Of course, marrow used in human marrow transplants is from live donors, and the withdrawn marrow may have some blood with it. Hence, the Christian would have to resolve for himself whether?to him?the bone-marrow graft would amount to simple flesh or would be unbled tissue. Additionally, since a marrow graft is a form of transplant, the Scriptural aspects of human organ transplants should be considered. See "Questions From Readers" in our issue of March 15, 1980. Finally, writing in Harrison?s Principles of Internal Medicine (Update I, 1981, page 138), Dr. D. E. Thomas observes that "virtually all marrow transplant recipients will require platelet transfusions" and many are given "packed red blood cells." So the Christian should consider what additional issues he would have to face if he submitted to a marrow transplant.?Proverbs 22:3.
Though a personal decision has to be made on this matter, the Bible?s comments about blood and marrow should help the individual to decide.
-
61
A witness should NOT ALLOW their cat to eat a bird!
by gumby inwitnesses believe it would be a transgression against jehovah's sanctity of blood to give your pet a blood transfusion....even though it's an animal, blood is to be poured out on the ground and not used in any manner.
one time, a notable brother who left the borg and was visiting with some friends to encourage them out of the cult, saw the wifes cat eating a bird out the window.
he said "maggie!
-
-
shadow
*** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions from Readers ***
Questions
from Readers?
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?The psalmist declared at Psalm 119:97: "How I do love your law! All day long it is my concern." Such a love of God?s law and a concern for it would surely cause a dedicated servant of God to avoid any violation of God?s law whatsoever. God?s law on blood is very clear. Blood is not to be used as food and, when withdrawn from a body, it is to be poured out on the ground. (Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; Acts 15:20, 28, 29) Christians certainly would not wish to do anything in violation of Jehovah?s law on blood. Love for God and for the righteous laws and principles of his Word calls forth that response from them in matters pertaining to blood.
Since God?s law on blood has not been altered over the centuries, Christians today realize that they are bound by it. Please note, however, that it is not fear of some reprisal that moves them to comply with Jehovah?s law on blood. They do not obey God?s law simply because violation of it might result in the imposing of sanctions by the Christian congregation of which they are a part. They love what is right. Furthermore, because of their love of God?s law they will not rationalize or seek ways in which it appears possible to circumscribe it with seeming impunity.
How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten. It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the body?s vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian.
In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent?s obligation before God.?Eccl. 12:13, 14; Jas. 4:17.
What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.
Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God.?1 Pet. 3:21.
But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? One who is going to show respect for God?s law on blood would not use it. True, according to the Mosaic law, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out upon the ground and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14) The objective was, however, that the blood should serve no useful purpose when thus disposed of. It was not placed on the ground with the thought in mind that it would serve as fertilizer. Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. Such blood use would be a commercializing on something that God has reserved for himself. It would be a violation of God?s Word.
Servants of God have been told in the Scriptures what is to be done with blood. So they know that they would be held responsible by Jehovah for any misuse of blood over which they might have control. What is more, because they love God they are prompted to observe the laws and principles of his Word. Thus they are moved to keep Jehovah?s law on blood even in ways that might appear to some to be insignificant. They do not view compliance with it as an encumbrance, for they hold in remembrance the words of 1 John 5:3, which states: "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome."
-
7
Sex abuse victims target Jehovah's Witness in civil suit
by Valis inelsewhere has been trying to post this today and was having probs...thanks to elsewhere almighty for bringing this to us.. http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=418d0b2c-444e-45d5-a47f-41c07da4f610.
sex abuse victims target jehovah's witness in civil suit.
wednesday, april 14, 2004 .
-
-
shadow
Jehovah's Witness Associate General Counsel Mario F. Moreno released a statement about the two Napa cases.
"Our investigating shows that the accused died in 1995 and that he did not serve in any position of authority with Jehovah's Witnesses until February 1979, long before these plaintiffs filed their lawsuits in 2003," Moreno wrote. "While our hearts go out to Clarissa, Nicole and Tabitha, the facts will show that neither the Watchtower Society nor the local elders are responsible..."Is this an accurate statement by Moreno? this person was serving in some appointed position?
Was there an offer to help with funding professional counseling? Does Moreno feel there is any value to "our hearts go out to" the victims?
Does anyone know anything about Moreno?
Very sad.
1 John 3:16-18
16
By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his soul for us; and we are under obligation to surrender [our] souls for [our] brothers. 17 But whoever has this world?s means for supporting life and beholds his brother having need and yet shuts the door of his tender compassions upon him, in what way does the love of God remain in him? 18 Little children, let us love, neither in word nor with the tongue, but in deed and truth.James 2:15-1715
If a brother or a sister is in a naked state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of YOU says to them: "Go in peace, keep warm and well fed," but YOU do not give them the necessities for [their] body, of what benefit is it? 17 Thus, too, faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself. -
19
Blood recycling machine bought by JW community
by Wallflower inaccidently came across this news article from the scunthorpe telegraph :.
http://www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk/displaynode.jsp?nodeid=56019&command=displaycontent&sourcenode=56018&contentpk=9562850.
'recycling' could cut blood shortage .
-
-
shadow
Actually, it is now permissible for blood to be taken to another location, treated, returned to the patient's location and reinfused.
-
6
governing body or Governing Body?
by shadow inis this quotation indicative of the opinion that the gb have of themselves?
or is this just a stupid question?
anyone have any actual information on why they do this?
-
-
shadow
Blondie,
Hmmmhh, I did not know that.
I wonder what they were thinking here:
***
w75 1/15 pp. 41-42 Jehovah?s Witnesses Move Ahead in Canada ***The article accompanying the headline explained: "As traditional religions slowly decline, their churches and temples getting emptier all the time, Jehovah?s Witnesses are experiencing increased membership and are even getting former church buildings and other new facilities in which to gather their new members."
With an English Protestant and a French Catholic background, Canada was once a very religious country. Many still sincerely attend church services and try to practice their religion. But times have changed.
Today even outspoken advocates of such things as "abortion on demand" may continue as church members in good standing. The steady decline of religion?s influence in Canada is evident from such headlines as "Shortage of Priests Called ?Panic?" and "Sunday Schools Declining."
Jehovah?s witnesses, on the other hand, have steadily moved ahead. The Witnesses began their work of Bible teaching here in the 1880?s. At the time they wondered how it would be possible to reach all the people in this massive country, the second-largest in land area in the world. They went to work with diligence and conviction, and by 1914 there were 1,150 Witnesses busy proclaiming Bible truth to their neighbors.
The next thirty years saw a remarkable 690-percent increase in the number of Kingdom proclaimers, with 9,085 reporting activity in 1944. During the three decades since then Jehovah?s witnesses have steadily moved ahead in Canada. By 1974 they reached a peak of 58,542. That means that in just sixty years Canadian Witnesses have grown by 4990 percent.
-
6
governing body or Governing Body?
by shadow inis this quotation indicative of the opinion that the gb have of themselves?
or is this just a stupid question?
anyone have any actual information on why they do this?
-
-
shadow
Yes, it could just be an attempt at correct grammar, but then why make the distinction between modern and first-century? Any grammar experts here?