How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why do we think that the majority of those who actually spend their lives studying scripture have it so wrong and only the few who do it as a hobby are right? We start to sound like those anti-vaccine wackos who note that autism set in near the time of a vaccination. Anecdotal evidence. But it has started a cottage industry of more wackos. And a school system with less protection from disease. There is a parallel.

I was following along really well until you launched into your "wacko" medicine.

Child is perfectly fine until he gets some new and improved vacc-shot, and you call it "anecdotal evidence." You wouldn't talk that way if it happened to your child.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was following along really well until you launched into your "wacko" medicine.

Child is perfectly fine until he gets some new and improved vacc-shot, and you call it "anecdotal evidence." You wouldn't talk that way if it happened to your child.

Autism typically sets in at a certain age. It is also an age at which certain vaccinations are given. Besides the correlation, there has, as yet, been no causal link provided. But your child, or grandchild, is put somewhat at risk despite their own vaccinations due to the presence of those without vaccinations. It is an emotional thing to have that happen to your child. But it does not prove anything. If autism tended to set in at about one year of age, then someone might suggest that the fact that most learn to walk then is the cause of the autism. We would laugh at them for saying that. But there is no more evidence that vaccinations are a cause of autism than any other natural milestone occurring at that time. Only a presumption that it is so. And once you believe it, you believe it.

And the kind of appeal to celebrity that people like Jenny McCarthy and others use as a way to get heard. They just want it to be true. But no one can prove it.

Now if I managed to step into a family minefield by using that example, I did not intend to make it personal to anyone. But there is no evidence of a link between vaccinations and autism other than proximity in time.

BTW, the older you get, the more likely you are to die. I suggest that we warn people about the dangers of getting older. Based on the available data, that is just about as meaningful.

But the point is that people without the slightest idea of what they are talking about are the only ones really pushing this vaccination issue. In a similar way, it is almost only those of us who may be good at parsing English, but have no idea about Greek Hebrew, or the culture, idioms, etc., of the times who are suggesting that those who do are simply pulling the wool over our eyes to become "LEADERS." Sort of blame the experts and suggest that they aren't all in the same breath.

And we were first fed the idea by some who would be our non- leader leaders. Who would give us more rope than the previous leaders so we didn't see the similarities. And the fact that it was happening that way makes me suspect that the old leaders were actually less onerous than the new ones. Yet we bought their wares and continue to show them off even after we have discarded the salesman as a shyster.

I think that is the part that bothers me the most. We have seen through the source, but still cling to way too much of its produce. We seek the leeks and garlic of the LRC. We desperately want more Soylent Green. (For the younger ones out there, there's something to dig around for.)

I wasn't picking on John. We all do it. And even plain-ole evangelicalism somewhat leads us down that path when we are sort of told that "me and my bible" can figure it all out. Not saying we are idiots or fools, but at some level we can't. We need help. We do need teachers. And when we read the Bible as if every word is equally applicable to every person all of the time, we start to put a lot of guilt-trip on ourselves. We get down on ourselves for not being among those that go and disciple all nations. Or even disciple a bunch of the local neighborhood. I'm not sure that was a universal call. At least not as recorded in Matthew. And I've said so here before.

And if it is all for everyone, then I guess elders are ultimately pointless because we can all read those passages by Paul and do what it takes to become one ourselves. Just think, an assembly of elders. I bet that wouldn't last long.

My point is that the best among us — me included — are not immune to this plague. So many of us were set upon by some ideals during that age 16 to 30 period when you set many of your patterns for life. We seldom look to the left or right of our well-worn paths. The "funny" thing about it to me is that, while I see enough about it to point it out, I realize that I am just as much in that rut as anyone else. At least until I see/read/hear something that disconnects me from my rut. Forces me to look aside. Consider something different.

I'm not forcing a conclusion. I'm suggesting that we have concluded too quickly. That we really don't have all the evidence. We just think we do. I would not say that everything about the average leadership in Christianity is simply OK. But I suspect that it is better than the knee-jerk distrust that we have been taught. And taught by people that we don't even trust anymore. Go figure. I see it in me all the time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Autism typically sets in at a certain age. It is also an age at which certain vaccinations are given. Besides the correlation, there has, as yet, been no causal link provided.

Sometimes "causal links" are there staring them in the face, but they refuse to see them because of personal agendas. Happens all the time. I laugh at every new medicine that gets aired on TV. How many "wonder drugs" of old are now the foodstuffs of the legal profession.

Hate to take more time to discuss this, cause I'm sure the Topiq Natzi will incinerate them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Autism typically sets in at a certain age. It is also an age at which certain vaccinations are given. Besides the correlation, there has, as yet, been no causal link provided. But your child, or grandchild, is put somewhat at risk despite their own vaccinations due to the presence of those without vaccinations. It is an emotional thing to have that happen to your child. But it does not prove anything. If autism tended to set in at about one year of age, then someone might suggest that the fact that most learn to walk then is the cause of the autism. We would laugh at them for saying that. But there is no more evidence that vaccinations are a cause of autism than any other natural milestone occurring at that time. Only a presumption that it is so. And once you believe it, you believe it.

I think the most recent studies have basically demonstrated, unequivocally, that there is no causal link between vaccinations at age 6 and autism. But here is the issue, you have no right to say what doesn't cause autism until you can say what does cause it. This is where the experts lost all credibility when they started telling people what didn't cause it even though they couldn't tell them what did.

As a result people experimented with many different things and had proven, though limited, success with diet. This was despite the fact they were told that "it is genetic" and that diet and environment didn't cause autism. As we now have a much better idea of what might cause autism we can say that in part that is right, diet and environment don't "cause" autism, the cause is genetic. But diet and environment can have a huge impact so that in a significant portion of those with autism the symptoms can be completely eliminated with a change in diet and environment. And in an even larger percent the symptoms can be alleviated though not eliminated.

Is it reasonable to look at all environmental factors including inoculations since the epidemic was traced to about the time that the inoculations were first given to kids, and also since symptoms often first appeared immediately after the inoculation was given? Sure, why not? Had the experts been on the leading edge of this research it could have been disproved before the hype caused many people to stop vaccinating. Once again the problem is not with the hypothesis or the research. The problem was with "experts" telling people what didn't cause Autism when they couldn't tell people what did.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the most recent studies have basically demonstrated, unequivocally, that there is no causal link between vaccinations at age 6 and autism. But here is the issue, you have no right to say what doesn't cause autism until you can say what does cause it. This is where the experts lost all credibility when they started telling people what didn't cause it even though they couldn't tell them what did.

As a result people experimented with many different things and had proven, though limited, success with diet. This was despite the fact they were told that "it is genetic" and that diet and environment didn't cause autism. As we now have a much better idea of what might cause autism we can say that in part that is right, diet and environment don't "cause" autism, the cause is genetic. But diet and environment can have a huge impact so that in a significant portion of those with autism the symptoms can be completely eliminated with a change in diet and environment. And in an even larger percent the symptoms can be alleviated though not eliminated.

Is it reasonable to look at all environmental factors including inoculations since the epidemic was traced to about the time that the inoculations were first given to kids, and also since symptoms often first appeared immediately after the inoculation was given? Sure, why not? Had the experts been on the leading edge of this research it could have been disproved before the hype caused many people to stop vaccinating. Once again the problem is not with the hypothesis or the research. The problem was with "experts" telling people what didn't cause Autism when they couldn't tell people what did.

OK. I'll try to remember that unsupported health claims is not a good example in the future. Skip the autism/vaccination thing and look at what I was trying to parallel. Do you have any comment there? Otherwise, you are wasting your time.

And at some level, making my point that people get too tied to what they think must be true when they can't explain it. Two things happen near the same time, so they must be related. They can feel it in their bones. And someone on TV said it.

You are right that just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't so. But that is very different from saying it must be so because it can't be disproved. Or hasn't been disproved. People who insist that it is true without any actual evidence are just not believable to me. They lose credibility. Giving the benefit of doubt becomes difficult. Is that understandable without discussing autism?

And even more to the point, it was to parallel the theological assertions of us who are not theologians, like actresses declaring an epidemic based on correlation without actual evidence (and so many buying into it). We need real theologians just like Jenny McCarthy needs real research. And the theologians do not take the position that we and the LRC's non-theologian leadership has dreamed up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And even more to the point, it was to parallel the theological assertions of us who are not theologians, like actresses declaring an epidemic based on correlation without actual evidence (and so many buying into it). We need real theologians just like Jenny McCarthy needs real research. And the theologians do not take the position that we and the LRC's non-theologian leadership has dreamed up.

Yes, this is more to the point. Einstein had an absolutely incredible year of releasing ideas that he worked on while he was not a "professional" scientist, but a clerk. The fact that most people who practice science are untrained and as a result have faulty methodology doesn't in any way support an assertion that theology should be left to the theologians. On the contrary, "lead or get out of the way". Autism is an excellent example of research and breakthroughs coming as much from the amateurs as the professionals.

The lesson here is that epidemics, Autism and AIDS are two examples that come to mind, have to be dealt with in a way that all people can trust, otherwise you open the door to panic. And, theories have to be investigated quickly, it is an easy enough proposition to prove or disprove a link between inoculations and autism, however it requires a lot of work doing statistical analysis. Some of these studies can take 5-10 years to be definitive, so it is critical that you begin 5 years before the movie stars start to hear about it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the most recent studies have basically demonstrated, unequivocally, that there is no causal link between vaccinations at age 6 and autism.

Tonight's NBC world news links autism to overweight mothers. Tomorrow it will be global warming.

The medical profession loves to conclude that illness is genetic. I have several friends who recently had open heart surgery for clogged arteries. Each was told it was "genetic." In other words, no one and no thing is responsible. How convenient for the doctors. Imagine if the doctor was truly honest and told him that his wife's cooking is killing him.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The medical profession loves to conclude that illness is genetic. I have several friends who recently had open heart surgery for clogged arteries. Each was told it was "genetic." In other words, no one and no thing is responsible. How convenient for the doctors. Imagine if the doctor was truly honest and told him that his wife's cooking is killing him.

Doesn't sound like such a bad way to go if you ask me...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Autism typically sets in at a certain age. It is also an age at which certain vaccinations are given. Besides the correlation, there has, as yet, been no causal link provided. But your child, or grandchild, is put somewhat at risk despite their own vaccinations due to the presence of those without vaccinations. It is an emotional thing to have that happen to your child. But it does not prove anything. If autism tended to set in at about one year of age, then someone might suggest that the fact that most learn to walk then is the cause of the autism. We would laugh at them for saying that. But there is no more evidence that vaccinations are a cause of autism than any other natural milestone occurring at that time. Only a presumption that it is so. And once you believe it, you believe it.

Your comment about walking and autism is laughable, since children have been walking since the dawn of time. What has changed, however, is the number of toxic vaccines injected into our children. As a child, I received only a few vaccines. Presently that number is up in the dozens.

Today we are aborting the unborn for health related issues which are discovered via testing. If autism cannot be detected before birth, then we will be forced to euthanize our children to avert an even bigger disaster.

Childhood illnesses are part of creation, enabling their immune systems to be strengthened naturally. All we are doing is swapping necessary childhood illnesses for far more serious adult illnesses like cancer.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Childhood illnesses are part of creation, enabling their immune systems to be strengthened naturally. All we are doing is swapping necessary childhood illnesses for far more serious adult illnesses like cancer.

So when a kid does not die of scarlet fever at the age of 4...instead dies of a heart attack, or cancer, at the age of 74...all you can say is, we've just swapped one illness for another?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

So when a kid does not die of scarlet fever at the age of 4...instead dies of a heart attack, or cancer, at the age of 74...all you can say is, we've just swapped one illness for another?

I would recommend "Burzynski", a documentary movie that covers 40 years of history in which the FDA works tirelessly to make sure a proven cancer cure does not get approved without it first being stolen by big Pharma.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would recommend "Burzynski", a documentary movie that covers 40 years of history in which the FDA works tirelessly to make sure a proven cancer cure does not get approved without it first being stolen by big Pharma.

How quickly we are distracted to the irrelevant.

New diagnosis: ADLS: Attention Deficit . . . Look! Shiny!!

Maybe it really is time for the Topiq Nazi.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

How quickly we are distracted to the irrelevant.

New diagnosis: ADLS: Attention Deficit . . . Look! Shiny!!

Maybe it really is time for the Topiq Nazi.

You are the one that suggested parallels

How has the LRC affected my view of Babylon? The way in which PL used threats of lawsuits and excommunication to sell books is beautifully mirrored in this documentary of "Babylon".

How has the LRC affected my view of Babylon? The way in which Phd's were hired to spin out fabricated stories like "The fermentation of the present rebellion" is beautifully mirrored in this documentary of "Babylon".

How has the LRC affected my view of Babylon? The way in which love and truth are the first victims as those with impure motives, bad conscience and feigned faith pretend to be "all knowing" and "all wise" is beautifully portrayed in this documentary.

Autism is an acceptable and relevant illustration but cancer isn't? Why don't you judge your own posts with the same judgement that you judge others?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Childhood illnesses are part of creation, enabling their immune systems to be strengthened naturally. All we are doing is swapping necessary childhood illnesses for far more serious adult illnesses like cancer.

And on this we actually agree.

But, as I have said at least twice now, the point wasn't to prove anything about autism, but to parallel the certainty of cause claimed by many who have nothing more than suspicion.

As far as things go, how many factors of the physical nature of man have changed over the centuries? Some of the changes are the result of the more widespread availability of good food. Some the result of the more widespread availability of junk food. Some of the eradication of diseases that killed many in past generations. Some of the onset of new diseases that keep the planet in "balance." Not suggesting some self-limiting symbiosis. Just noting that it is always changing.

Even the viruses are limiting. Those that kill too aggressively die-off because we quarantine their hosts. So only those strains that are less severe and non-fatal survive since they do not get the attention that the fatal ones do.

And every so often, someone comes along and sees some correlation somewhere and creates a cottage industry of nonsensical, almost superstitious medicine to combat it. There is one in which you simply hold a vial (glass) of a substance and it is supposed to cure you.

Forget autism. I used it because it is somewhat better known. I had no idea that everyone would get emotional about it and miss the point. The point that the basis of the claim is a guess — a hunch — and not a substantive fact. And the similarity in that to failing to find the word "training" or "school" or "leader training" and conclude that it is not spoken of. It demonstrates our ignorance of what is actually there in scripture. It is full of training. And the training wasn't for everybody who believed. And it wasn't the same for everybody who followed as a disciple.

We read John's epistle and conclude that when he said "you have no need that anyone teach you" it meant concerning anything. Even that verse has a context.

And arguing against the validity of my parallel does not dismiss my point. It just shows that parallels are not perfect. Just like metaphors are not perfect. And when you argue against the parallel rather than the idea that I seek to create an "aha" concerning with that parallel, you turn the discussion from the point to an irrelevancy. And so even if someday they actually discover a link between vaccinations and autism, for someone to be sure of it today is to be sure based on nothing substantial. My point stands even if the conclusion within it does not.

And when we read scripture, we are not really as smart as we think. I start to wonder about things I have been taught since my youth, and yet I stick with them because I was taught it from my youth. Does that make sense? I face it full on and cannot always reconcile it. It is one of those places where the law of non-contradiction is at a stalemate for me. I know what I have thought for years. And I see something that seems contradictory. I want to believe both. But I do not yet see how they are differentiated in such a manner as to coexist, yet cannot declare one as correct and the other false.

I am convinced that there is an answer that does not contradict. Either one is right and the other wrong, or they are not actually at odds. But I do not yet understand it. So I live with the contradiction rather than blindly hold to one because that is what I was taught at that age when I thought I was so smart.

And I seek more input while some think they have found the answer and are finished. I do not dismiss their conclusions. I take them in as possible evidence that will also become a conclusion for me. But on the current topics, I find that it is not so easy. And I have a hard time leaning much on overlays of scripture analysis that are too much like what we learned in the LRC. I am now at a place where those positions need proving rather than being the starting point. I actually believe that the majority positions are generally stronger and better starting points than virtually anything that Lee taught us that was different.

I liked the more free meetings. But, as someone else recently said, popcorn testimonies do not supply substantial nourishment. Just emotions. And leaderless groups are sheep without a shepherd. It may start as enjoyable. No one directing you with a rod. But eventually you all go in your own direction.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Forget autism. I used it because it is somewhat better known. I had no idea that everyone would get emotional about it and miss the point. The point that the basis of the claim is a guess — a hunch — and not a substantive fact. And the similarity in that to failing to find the word "training" or "school" or "leader training" and conclude that it is not spoken of. It demonstrates our ignorance of what is actually there in scripture. It is full of training. And the training wasn't for everybody who believed. And it wasn't the same for everybody who followed as a disciple.

If scientists only dealt in substantive facts there would be no discoveries or advancement of knowledge. Research begins with a guess, it is called a Hypothesis. The experiment is then designed to prove or disprove that.

So then let's reexamine your thesis. Some claim that their is no training in the NT because the word "training" does not appear even though the Bible is full of training, this is ignorant. (I agree with you).

This is like some claiming that Autism might be caused by inoculations which has since been examined and proven not to be linked. (Yes, this example is a good example of ignorance, your ignorance in how the scientific process works. The problem is not that we can't follow your logic, the problem is that it was flawed unless it was supposed to be dripping with irony).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is like some claiming that Autism might be caused by inoculations which has since been examined and proven not to be linked. (Yes, this example is a good example of ignorance, your ignorance in how the scientific process works. The problem is not that we can't follow your logic, the problem is that it was flawed unless it was supposed to be dripping with irony).

It is not a matter of not knowing the scientific process, but not knowing the exact state of the application of it to autism and vaccinations. My general understanding is that there have been studies that have found no link, and some that tend to disprove the existence of any un-found link. The last I heard on it left it as not clearly wrong, but near to it.

But I really don't care about the exact state of research into this alleged phenomenon. It wasn't the point.

And for you to suggest that someone (me) is ignorant of how the scientific process works is to stretch the content of what I have said far beyond what it clearly evidences. (And Ohio thinks I am the one who is out picking on people.) Nothing I said should have given you cause to conclude anything about my knowledge of the scientific method.

The only thing worth noting about any of it is whether it might be reasonable to reconsider how well we think we know what scripture says that so many over so many centuries disagree with. That does not mean that we do not raise the questions we think we see. They need to hear our thoughts. And consider them, not just dismiss them. And maybe we will all discover that, as a result of an ignorant question, we realize we have been reading something wrong. So I'm not suggesting that what I, Ohio, ZNP, John, UntoHim, Igzy, rayolita, or anyone else thinks is simply bogus or wrong. It just can't be simply right because we think it is or because we have some sense that the Spirit is with us )and therefore must not be with them).

So forget autism. Forget the scientific method. It evidently is a distraction to some rather than a worthy parallel or example.