Mere Christianity or Degraded Christianity?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Like the "Recovery" isn't an organization of man...

And I'm not defending Catholicism nor Lutheranism. I'm defending the right of congregations to exist and to hold their beliefs in good conscience without people like you telling them they are "false."

Please try to keep up.

I know that, you are trying to maintain unity by defending the divisions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know that, you are trying to maintain unity by defending the divisions.

Igzy just defended your LSM/LC division, and its right to exist and hold its beliefs.

Paul in Romans 16 admonishes us to identify and "mark" those Blended Brothers at LSM who "make divisions and causes of stumbling."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy just defended your LSM/LC division, and its right to exist and hold its beliefs.

Paul in Romans 16 admonishes us to identify and "mark" those Blended Brothers at LSM who "make divisions and causes of stumbling."

Why? Who is attacking it? I'm not. I have never said the LSM/LC has no right to exist and hold its beliefs. That view I hold for the denominations.

[DistantStar]

Interesting quotes by Evangelical (feel free to add - it's a work in progress):

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have never said the LSM/LC has no right to exist and hold its beliefs. That view I hold for the denominations.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The "others" are illegitimate "churches".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We do so when we consider all believers in our city to be part of the one local church. We do not see the denominations in this sense.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am trying to say that an us and them mentality is not necessarily wrong when it is light versus darkness. In relation to brothers and sisters in Christ we are transcendent and in relation to the corrupt organizations we are "us and them" mentality.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Of course - why we would try to get along with Satan?

Igzy said that you do not represent the mainstream LC view, yet it seems you dispute that. If that is the case, then the quotes I have above will be enough to show people the hypocrisy of the LC.

By the way, what do you make of the Orthodox Church? As far as I know (I could be wrong as I know little about them) they, especially the official Russian Orthodox Church, believe all other churches to be false. I think they equate them to Satan (though once again I'm unsure). Sound familiar?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Igzy said that you do not represent the mainstream LC view.

I would more say that his attitude reflects poorly on many of the more mature and restrained LCMers. But most of them still believe somewhere that they are IT. If they didn't they wouldn't stay there. That's the whole game. Very few would stay in the LCM if they felt they had a choice to leave. So to relieve the cognitive dissonance, the Stockholm Syndrome kicks in and they become staunch defenders of the LCM, "true believers." But their specious arguments give them away, not that they admit it. All this takes place on a mostly subconscious level, as they try to find their place in a group that has convinced them they will "miss the kingdom" if they leave. It's hairy stuff.

So basically you get three type of LCMers here:

1. The ones who are out or on their way out. These are like people who are waking up from a dream.
   
2. The ones who cannot defend the LCM by anything other than repeating what they've heard. They usually don't last long.
   
3. The smart ones, like Evangelical. They don't mind arguing and in the process prove they are neither holier, wiser nor more enlightened than anyone else here.

Occasionally you'll see a fourth kind--someone pretty reasonable and intelligent and sincere, like Drake. I can only speculate that these eventually admit to the problems with the LCM, but not necessarily publicly.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I would more say that his attitude reflects poorly on many of the more mature and restrained LCMers. But most of them still believe somewhere that they are IT. If they didn't they wouldn't stay there. That's the whole game. Very few would stay in the LCM if they felt they had a choice to leave. So to relieve the cognitive dissonance, the Stockholm Syndrome kicks in and they become staunch defenders of the LCM, "true believers." But their specious arguments give them away, not that they admit it. All this takes place on a mostly subconscious level, as they try to find their place in a group that has convinced them they will "miss the kingdom" if they leave. It's hairy stuff.

So basically you get three type of LCMers here:

1. The ones who are out or on their way out. These are like people who are waking up from a dream.
   
2. The ones who cannot defend the LCM by anything other than repeating what they've heard. They usually don't last long.
   
3. The smart ones, like Evangelical. They don't mind arguing and in the process prove they are neither holier, wiser nor more enlightened than anyone else here.

Occasionally you'll see a fourth kind--someone pretty reasonable and intelligent and sincere, like Drake. I can only speculate that these eventually admit to the problems with the LCM, but not necessarily publicly.

Would you rather I pretend to agree with you? If I am more restrained does this change my beliefs or your beliefs? No. Deep down in their heart the mature and more restrained ones still think they are right and you are wrong. The Catholics do the same thing. Very nice people and tolerant towards other churches but they don't compromise on their core beliefs. Every church that believes it is the true church does the same.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Would you rather I pretend to agree with you?

I would rather you acknowledge that your opinion on this matter is of a tiny, obscure minority and is not accepted by hardly any reputable theologians, bible teachers, church leaders or anyone else. Some humility is in order. The onus is on you to prove your case. So you need to come up with something better than semantic games with words like "division" and so forth. It is something kids might fall for, but not people who know better. And you act as if what you believe should be common sense, as if people who don't believe it are either evil or stupid. If you really were onto something real, you'd acknowledge based on history and the situation that selling it is difficult. You wouldn't swagger as you do. You'd be humbly looking for positive ways to spread what you believe.

That's what's funny about the LCM. If they really wanted to spread their ideas they would take a much different approach and attitude.

It just doesn't smell right.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Interesting quotes by Evangelical (feel free to add - it's a work in progress):

Igzy said that you do not represent the mainstream LC view, yet it seems you dispute that. If that is the case, then the quotes I have above will be enough to show people the hypocrisy of the LC.

By the way, what do you make of the Orthodox Church? As far as I know (I could be wrong as I know little about them) they, especially the official Russian Orthodox Church, believe all other churches to be false. I think they equate them to Satan (though once again I'm unsure). Sound familiar?

Quite a number of denominations believe they are the true church. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist. The ones that do not claim this today, probably did claim that in past history.

What is "mainstream LC"? Igzy referenced a few of his friends in the LC. I have friends too in the LC, even mature LC people that believe like me. Who exactly is mainstream?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know that, you are trying to maintain unity by defending the divisions.

I don't consider them divisions. Division implies animosity. Different names and different ways to meet don't imply division. If they did Paul wouldn't have written Romans 12.

What you seem to miss is that your insistence on your way or the highway is more divisive than the denominations.

Instead of just continuing to repeat the same assertions and acting obnoxious, why don't you try mounting an intelligent argument that actually shows respect for the intelligence of the listener? Like I said, 99.9999% of Christians would not be interested in what you are peddling. Do you think they are all stupid? What, are they just supposed to believe you are right just because you say you are? Where's the evidence, the fruit, that you are correct? I don't see it. I just see a tiny group that is a mixture of good and bad, but has some serious dysfunction, all enabled by some extremely specious reasoning.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't consider them divisions. Division implies animosity. Different names and different ways to meet don't imply division. If they did Paul wouldn't have written Romans 12.

What you seem to miss is that your insistence on your way or the highway is more divisive than the denominations.

Instead of just continuing to repeat the same assertions and acting obnoxious, why don't you try mounting an intelligent argument that actually shows respect for the intelligence of the listener? Like I said, 99.9999% of Christians would not be interested in what you are peddling. Do you think they are all stupid? What, are they just supposed to believe you are right just because you say you are? Where's the evidence, the fruit, that you are correct? I don't see it. I just see a tiny group that is a mixture of good and bad, but has some serious dysfunction, all enabled by some extremely specious reasoning.

Division implies separation. Groups do not have to have animosity to be divided. For example, USA and Canada are divided but there is no animosity between them. Seems you struggle with basic English definitions and logic.

Your idea that insisting on unity makes it divisive does not make sense. That is like saying that insisting that a hamburger is not a pizza turns the hamburger into a pizza. You are saying "the hamburger which insists it is not a pizza is the most pizza-like of all!". An idea that insisting on unity is divisive is stupid.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Division implies separation. Groups do not have to have animosity to be divided. For example, USA and Canada are divided but there is no animosity between them. Seems you struggle with basic English definitions and logic.

Your idea that insisting on unity makes it divisive does not make sense. That is like saying that insisting that a hamburger is not a pizza turns the hamburger into a pizza. You are saying "the hamburger which insists it is not a pizza is the most pizza-like of all!". An idea that insisting on unity is divisive is stupid.

Until you read the ingredients, and learn that the hamburger and the pizza are the same.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Until you read the ingredients, and learn that the hamburger and the pizza are the same.

Right. Meat, cheese, carbohydrates and vegetables. Same essential ingredients, just presented a different way. Good analogy, Ohio.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your idea that insisting on unity makes it divisive does not make sense.

In my opinion what you are insisting on is not true unity.

Don't you see? Anything can become a point of division. If you and I see "unity" as meaning different things it becomes just another source of division. That's the catch you don't see, or don't want to see.

So what do you do when such a disagreement exists? In my experience the problem is almost always on the extremes. And as I've said the LCM represents an extreme and obscure position. There is nothing close to a consensus that you are correct, your argument doesn't hold water and you tend toward arrogance. So why should I believe you?

You are only going to win people over by showing positive fruit. That includes humility and a genuine care for others.

I'm preaching to myself, too.

[Evangelical]

I do not insist that someone come over to my side or change their view. I believe that even to try to "win someone over" when they are already part of the Body of Christ is itself a divisive act. However I must state the truth as I understand it, rather than mix it with the error and call it a compromise. Mutual agreement and understanding is a kind of compromise. For example, Catholic and Protestant may sympathize with each other and understand each other's point of view. But that does not stop them staying on their sides of the fence. That stalemate situation will only change if one of them realizes the other is correct and decides to jump over the fence.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

However I must state the truth as I understand it, rather than mix it with the error and call it a compromise.

How much have you actually prayed about this matter? In my experience people in the LC don't pray much about these things. They just get won over by the "logic" of it and run with it. Have you truly prayed for the Lord to show you his heart about unity? Have you prayed about your approach, attitude and demeanor in the matter?

I remember once asking a LCer to pray about the things he so self-assuredly declared. His response? "I don't need to pray." Does that sound like the Spirit to you?

At some level you must realize that it is highly unlikely you are correct, given the record of lack of acceptance of your view down through history and the lack of growth of the movement you are in.

I challenge you to sincerely pray for one month every day for 15 minutes asking the Lord to show you what is true regarding unity, what attitude to have about it and how to go forward with it. Put everything on the table in prayer. I'd be willing to bet your beliefs and approach change.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How much have you actually prayed about this matter? In my experience people in the LC don't pray much about these things. They just get won over by the "logic" of it and run with it. Have you truly prayed for the Lord to show you his heart about unity? Have you prayed about your approach, attitude and demeanor in the matter?

I remember once asking a LCer to pray about the things he so self-assuredly declared. His response? "I don't need to pray." Does that sound like the Spirit to you?

At some level you must realize that it is highly unlikely you are correct, given the record of lack of acceptance of your view down through history and the lack of growth of the movement you are in.

I challenge you to sincerely pray for one month every day for 15 minutes asking the Lord to show you what is true regarding unity, what attitude to have about it and how to go forward with it. Put everything on the table in prayer. I'd be willing to bet your beliefs and approach change.

That person may have been so convinced that he does not need to pray. When God's will is known, the question does not need asking. For example, I don't need to ask God whether I should come to work today, or whether I should wear pants. For this person, it seemed unnecessary for him to ask God whether he needs to meet with the saints on the ground of locality. I don't think you should be quick to judge him/her for that.

From a mathematical perspective I might agree however the truth is not based upon probability and likelihoods. If I was to approach the matter of the church from the point of view of logic, I would choose Orthodox or Roman Catholic, as they are clearly the most historical, oldest and most apostolic churches around. But numbers can be misleading. It would have been unlikely that Jesus and the disciples were correct as compared to the mainstream religion of the time. Yes I prayed about it much when I was in denominations, for at least a year, and the Lord led me out and into the Recovery. At one point I was attending both and it was the attitude of the denomination I was in and the revelation God gave me that led me to leave and just attend the Recovery alone.

I believe that every week we should pray about where God wants us to attend church, or whether we should attend church at all or just stay at home. We need to just follow His leading. We also need to learn the difference between God's voice and our own thoughts and feelings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your idea that insisting on unity makes it divisive does not make sense.

But it does make sense. Why not rather be defrauded than seek your version of justice? Because your version is not God's. Your mind is not His, nor your heart. Only God is good.

By contrast, we see outward, enforced conformity, based on dissatisfaction, weakness and fear. "Unless everyone does exactly what I want, I'll be unhappy." Friend, you are unhappy now and you always will be, at that rate.

The unity of Babel is enforced. Everyone must bow to the same image.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But it does make sense. Why not rather be defrauded than seek your version of justice? Because your version is not God's. Your mind is not His, nor your heart. Only God is good.

By contrast, we see outward, enforced conformity, based on dissatisfaction, weakness and fear. "Unless everyone does exactly what I want, I'll be unhappy." Friend, you are unhappy now and you always will be, at that rate.

The unity of Babel is enforced. Everyone must bow to the same image.

Christianity is already divided, and has been for some time now. By insisting on unity we cannot make the division worse. It seems you are more interested in maintaining the status quo of "unity in division" than striving for perfection. The unity you speak of is a unity in division. It is saying "we are all divided, we are all the same, so we are in unity". It is a unity of compromise and mediocrity. It is a kind of false unity which is not unity at all. The dictionary definition of unity is "the state of being one; oneness". Today Christianity is not in a state of oneness but of manyness.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christianity is already divided, and has been for some time now. By insisting on unity we cannot make the division worse. It seems you are more interested in maintaining the status quo of "unity in division" than striving for perfection. The unity you speak of is a unity in division. It is saying "we are all divided, we are all the same, so we are in unity". It is a unity of compromise and mediocrity. It is a kind of false unity which is not unity at all. The dictionary definition of unity is "the state of being one; oneness". Today Christianity is not in a state of oneness but of manyness.

The Pharisees strove for perfection, too. We know what Jesus thought of them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Pharisees strove for perfection, too. We know what Jesus thought of them.

Not because they sought perfection, but because they rejected Christ. In the Recovery Christ is mentioned and appreciated 100 times more than in the denominations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Today Christianity is not in a state of oneness but of manyness.

I am not talking about the manyness of today's Christianity. I am talking about the sound of many waters. It's a beautiful sound. You can hear it anywhere. Even occasionally in Christianity.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The unity you speak of is a unity in division.

Of course I offer my opinion and nothing more. But the unity of which I speak is the unity of the Son and the Father. "Even as we are one, they shall be one" The way to get to that unity is not to look at our disunity but to look at their unity. Fix one's consciousness on it, resolutely. It is the kind of heavenly vision that Paul told Agrippa he was faithful to, to the very end.

[DistantStar]

The primary thing which drove me away was the thought that, by making an us-vs-them distinction, the LC was in effect making themselves another part of the division that they so desperately hate.

Here's a thought: how about the Local Church dissolve itself, then we're one step closer to having a unity in practice as well? I know this is unlikely to ever be achieved. But why increase the division that you hate so much?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I am not talking about the manyness of today's Christianity. I am talking about the sound of many waters. It's a beautiful sound. You can hear it anywhere. Even occasionally in Christianity.



Of course I offer my opinion and nothing more. But the unity of which I speak is the unity of the Son and the Father. "Even as we are one, they shall be one" The way to get to that unity is not to look at our disunity but to look at their unity. Fix one's consciousness on it, resolutely. It is the kind of heavenly vision that Paul told Agrippa he was faithful to, to the very end.

Unfortunately, the "many waters" includes "gay marriage is okay" and other such things. You are speaking of polluted waters. You must include all denominations in your assessment of Christianity, including the ones that marry homosexuals. If you don't, then you would be just like us, drawing a distinction between degraded Christianity and genuine Christianity.