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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

In any case, the insistence that the declaration in Revelation 18 is about Christianity in general, or the RCC in particular, is, at best, speculative and weak. There needs to be more than a bunch of exclusivist preachers denigrating everyone but their kind out there saying it is true based on something more than the kind of nonsense that Lee spouted about it. I need to see scripture more directly aim this at the church rather than at the "world" and/or Satan.

Assuming that John was actually writing Revelation in about 95 AD, the best view of people being drunk on the blood of the saints was the execution of so many Christians by heathen rulers, especially in a way of exhibition, such as in the Coliseum.

Babylon the Great in Revelation is presumed to refer to Rome in some fashion because Revelation 17:9 says "the seven heads are the seven mountains the woman sits on," and Rome was famously built on seven hills.

I think the best bet may be that Rome (and BtG) simply refers to the whole false worldly system, which includes false religions. As you implied, at the time Rome was not a Christian religious center, it was the center of worldly power and oppression of Christians. I do not think it refers to any legitimate Christian group, including Catholic churches. As you said, if Thyatira refers to the Catholic church, then why didn't the Lord tell the believers to leave that church? However, that is not to say there are not some systematized things that Catholics, and indeed many non-Catholics, need to "come out of."

When the Lord says "come out of her my people," it may be a warning to not participate in the evil practices of the worldly system. Or it may simply be a warning to, as Rooster Cogburn immortally put it in True Grit, "get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on" it.

[OBW]

Igzy,

You and I are pretty much on the same page here.

But one question. Which voice do you hear when Rooster Cogburn says that? Wayne or Bridges?

I actually never saw the John Wayne version until after seeing the new one. The beauty of the outdoors was so impressive in the old version, but the reality of the life and times was actually better in the new. The West was overly glamorized in most John Wayne films.

But the real question is: How do you go by horseback from Fort Smith, Arkansas to the kind of mountains they were in after only a couple of days? They had to be half-way across New Mexico or Colorado to find mountains with that look (in either film).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Igzy,

You and I are pretty much on the same page here.

But one question. Which voice do you hear when Rooster Cogburn says that? Wayne or Bridges?

I actually never saw the John Wayne version until after seeing the new one. The beauty of the outdoors was so impressive in the old version, but the reality of the life and times was actually better in the new. The West was overly glamorized in most John Wayne films.

But the real question is: How do you go by horseback from Fort Smith, Arkansas to the kind of mountains they were in after only a couple of days? They had to be half-way across New Mexico or Colorado to find mountains with that look (in either film).

OBW, Jeff Bridges, all the way. I also did not see the original until after I saw the Coen version. Wayne was Wayne, but Bridges was Cogburn.

BTW, the hymn "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" was the backbone of the movie's soundtrack. Here's a beautiful video that puts some of those musical pieces together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmhBUxUDPTA