Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
These verses all have to be stretched beyond recognition to support the type of pray-reading practiced in the LC. They are not even close. They do not indicate the Bible was designed to be prayed. You are reading into them something not intended, for why I don't know.
What I'm wondering is why you feel so strong as to over reach in your support for pray-reading.
I haven't pray-read for 30 yrs, and don't miss it at all. In fact, if I did try to pray-read the Bible I'd feel silly and stupid, like I would be in need to have my head examined.
What a silly unnecessary practice. May as well say some Buddhist mantra over and over again, or whirl like the dervishes. And that's okay if that's what you want to do. Sometimes being silly can be fun. So have at it. Pray read all the day long. Just don't let family and friends catch ya doing it, or they may check you into Bellevue for a 3 day mental examination.
|
I think the issue here is "the practice in the LRC". I am not defending the practice in the LRC. What I have said consistently from my first post on this thread to this one is that "pray reading" as defined by RG's book is scriptural.
OBW has argued that this book was written to defend the practice of the LRC and that by using the term "pray reading" it is a form of equivocation. I feel that it is too strong to accuse RG of this without more evidence. However, I think applying his use of equivocation to this thread is very accurate. Everyone that disagrees with my posts has done so based on "the practice in the LRC" whereas no one has actually disagreed with what I have actually said, which is "pray reading as defined in RG's book is scriptural".
The second thing that I have argued is that there was not a uniform practice of pray reading. When I was in Houston it was clearly a practice that was being hyped and sold, but not necessarily embraced or employed. When I was in Irving working on the hall it was almost non existent. When I was in Odessa, I did not bring this practice, nor did GW (thankfully) so it was not an issue at all. When I was in the FTTT it was there and I ignored it. When I was in NY the practice in the meetings was quite different from the practice in Dunton house and it was a minor irritant (as a High School teacher I have a high tolerance for minor irritants).
The third thing I have argued is that with sin and the flesh we should be absolute and uncompromising. But since this was neither we should be general, strict on ourselves, general with others. I have stated that judging the way a man serves his Lord is to cross a line and you will regret that at the Lord's judgement seat. But having said that I have fulfilled my responsibility.