[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

not sure that we speak very clearly concerning Babylon. Besides the general statement in Revelation concerning "Babylon the Great," Babylon was not a choice. It was exile. They were taken to Babylon. They did not sell their chalet in Bethlehem and load the Mayflower moving van and decide that Babylon seemed like a good place to go. No. God allowed the Babylonians to take the Israelites captive and take them away.

I was speaking regarding the general statement in Revelation concerning "Babylon the Great". It seemed connected to the less-than-sanguine reviews 5 of the 7 churches in Asia received, earlier in the same book (Revelation), which seemed related to the gospels' less-than-sanguine reviews the religious die-hards of Israel received "you brood of vipers...whitewashed tombs, etc", which seemed like a spiritual captivity.

But I didn't make all my assumptions explicit, so I apologize for tossing out my hermeneutical nuggets so lightly. Obviously everything is today's opinion, and will be subject to revision as more information becomes available. I should, by rights, include such disclaimers with every pronouncement from my keyboard (I have a penchant for grandiose statements, which seem to me to make good copy).

Originally Posted by OBW

The way we speak about Babylon, it is somewhere we choose to be. A place of our own making.

I wasn't thinking about "choice" vs. "captivity". The whole free-will thing is much too mysterious for me to weigh in on. Sorry if my discussions seem to indicate strong leanings either way.

Originally Posted by OBW

Now it is true that not all went back to Jerusalem when the first edict for their release came. But those that stayed behind were not spoken of as fallen Jews. In fact, unless I remember my stories incorrectly, at least one of the significant leaders was willfully serving the King of Babylon/Persia when he came to know that the ones that did go back were having trouble. A righteous man living almost as part of the household of a pagan king was called to get the "remnant" back on track. No chastisement for not having already gone back. No quarantine to make sure he was going to go along with things in Jerusalem.

I guess, thinking aloud here, that when I use the word "Babylon" I am thinking of being religious. You can be in "Babylonian" in any group, LC included. But some are not, and might be called "overcoming". Who is "Babylonian" and who is "overcomer" is going to be revealed, perhaps by fire, and so I am not comfortable making assessments before the time.

CMW said she found herself in the wilderness. I was inferring that preceding that she was in Babylon. Again, all my assumptions were loaded into the statement, and without the needed disclaimers. Someday I will learn how to be both concise and readable and also "safe", or "well-grounded". Still working on that one.

Originally Posted by OBW

And at least partly the result of the Jews that did not go back from the various captivities, there were Jews all over the known world ready for Philip, Peter, Paul, John, and others to speak to throughout Asia and even into Europe as the church spread.

Also, the whole idea of "come out of her, my people" is not necessarily to bodily leave Assembly A, B, or C. But rather come out of your tired formalism, your empty traditions, your sanctimonious know-it-all truths, your judgmentalism, your kow-towing to supposed "authorities" who are really empty suits, your vain dogmas which you prop up with swords and staves and bluster, etc.

Those, again, are personal decisions made by individuals who once were in "Egypt", went into "the Good Land", but got seduced/captivated/distracted into an empty and sterile outward expression, minus the key ingredient, who is God.

So I was lumping CMW's testimony, and her "finding herself in the wilderness" to coming out of Babylon and having lost her original bearings on the good land.

But all of that was poetic license on my part, and should, by rights, have come with as much disclaimers as a used-car does.