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

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Post #63 was your response to my post recommending the documentary Burzynski
which I said was about "a proven cancer cure".

You responded with insults:

And you would assert that changing the discussion from autism to cancer was "on point"? I was not saying anything about the veracity of the link provided. I was speaking to a post that was entirely wrapped-up in discussion that was not about how we read scripture. That entire post was about the FDA and science. It did not try to make a parallel or link back to the discussion.

My comment was not about you, but the subject of the post. You've spent almost all of your time talking about science and autism, and a little about the FDA and cancer cures.

It is a little like noting that Jesus used a metaphor and then speaking about nothing but the metaphor and not even a little about the thing it is intended to speak about.

It is not about you.

[OBW]

ZNP,

BTW. You aren't the only one stuck on the parallel and ignoring the point. It was getting ridiculous trying to speak about my actual point but being constantly required to deal with autism. The ADLS comment was for the whole thing. This happens too often with or without you. And there are probably things that suck me in as well.

Yours was just the post that was there when the thought hit me.

And there is a good reason that I have tended to be more scarce around here lately. I guess that trying to talk about how we read scripture is just too much. Especially if there is a distraction in the form of an example, parallel, metaphor, etc., to suck everyone into an alternate universe.

I had hoped that the autism issue would just go away. And the meaningful discussion (with or without any comments on my post) would go on. Instead, we got a flurry of arguments about autism. And then cancer.

And every one of my responses tried to point away from the "parallel" (I will accept it as a poor parallel) and back to what I was trying to say. All to no avail. Yes, you did say a little about it. But you kept going on the autism, and the scientific method, and even a cancer cure. And misinterpreted almost everything I said.

As for the ADLS comment (which was not specifically to you) you must admit that we managed to start off to speak about one thing but got distracted by the shiny new controversy that had nothing to do with anything on this forum. The joke goes like this:

There is a new diagnosis that is beyond ADHD, it's ADLS. Attention Deficit . . . Look!! Shiny!!

And there we were flocked around something new and shiny — a controversy about autism. Many years earlier, we were all flocked around another "new and shiny" think called the "Local Churches." And this "apostle" who would eventually be the MOTA, God's Oracle, and even the acting God on earth.

You take entirely too much as personal attack. And if you think that there is no way I can say anything about one of your posts that is not in agreement and be anything but an antagonist or opponent who wants to insult you, then I guess one of us will just have to resign.

And I guess it will be me. You can have this mess.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

ZNP, BTW. You aren't the only one stuck on the parallel and ignoring the point.

Well that makes more sense, if you had made your post without the direct quote of my post I would not have taken any offense. I would have seen it as commentary on the detour.

More importantly, I think this interchange is beneficial. It is difficult to carry on discussions in writing, over extended timespans with many other interjections going on. But as Igzy pointed out in the other thread, this is the process by which we are being transformed. We need to be immersed into a realm in which the Lord is speaking to us all the time and where we obey His speaking. The fact that we hold each others feet to the fire is a way of forcing us to deal with the speaking.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And you would assert that changing the discussion from autism to cancer was "on point"? I was not saying anything about the veracity of the link provided. I was speaking to a post that was entirely wrapped-up in discussion that was not about how we read scripture. That entire post was about the FDA and science. It did not try to make a parallel or link back to the discussion.

Post #61 was my response to Rayliota, not you. Rayliota was responding to Ohio's comment. Ohio's comment was voicing skepticism in trusting "experts" blindly (still within the context of healthcare). Rayliota's comment was pointing out that the standard of health in this country over the last 200 years should be considered to have improved and therefore why should we be skeptical.

My post responded why. Was it too brief for most to understand? Apparently. The point was simple, if Rayliota, or anyone, watches that documentary I think it would be very difficult to not be skeptical of the health care in this country. Yet it doesn't deny that over a 200 year time frame the standard of health may improve, just so long as the powers that be profit from that improvement.

Therefore my post did not "change the discussion". It had nothing to do with the discussion of autism. It had nothing to do with your point about how to read scripture. It wasn't addressed to you.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Therefore my post did not "change the discussion". It had nothing to do with the discussion of autism. It had nothing to do with your point about how to read scripture. It wasn't addressed to you.

You are correct.

And so am I. The whole discussion about autism and where that lead was the "new shiny" thing and it already had a following. You then joined in. Even took it somewhere else.

I tried to make a point about how we read scripture concerning training and the result was a protracted discussion about something irrelevant to the whole forum. And even if you didn't respond directly to me, you were sucked-in by the new shiny distraction.

Telling it like it is is not an insult. But the way you respond to any criticism, it would seem that it is pointless to offer it.

And as I already said, I will just go away now. I'm sure that you will be happier for it.

[RollingStone]

Good morning all,,
Just looked In the OT at Jeremiah 31:31-34 that says there will come a time when

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will pardon their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

Looking back at my life as a believer I can say that, I had a few weeks, when I was first a baby believer at the age of thirty, where all I had was a Bible and a desire to know God. And I was knowing God. Then I had the thought that I needed to meet with some other believers to know God more.


So I went to "church"

Since I was a baby believer I accepted what was said and going on as what God wanted,, even though a lot of things didn't agree with what I was knowing inside. In my mind I thought,, I am just a baby Christian and surely these other believers know much better than I the things of God.
I saw my self as the very least. They were speaking in tongues, singing, dancing and they had been doing this for generations, I thought they must surely know what they are doing.

It took me 10 yrs to figure out that I was in Corinth and still a baby.
Then I found the "Recovery" and thought I was in Philadelphia for 10 yrs.
Philadelphia became Laodicea.
Then I went into the wilderness where Jesus spent a lot of time. for the last 5 yrs.

Today I am in Jeremiah 31:31,32,33,34
I am back where I started.
Except now I am not a baby.

praise the Lord.

[countmeworthy]

So I glanced at the forum and this thread grabbed my attention. After scanning people's thoughts, it seems the question ought really be "how has the LRC affected your view of "degraded Christianity".

I think Lee claimed Babylon was the world and or Christianity. I honestly do not remember nor does it matter what he said about Babylon.

Babylon in the bible is the city in Iraq. Revelation speaks of "Mystery Babylon".
Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim from the Middle East insists Mystery Babylon is the city in Iraq. Babylon is Babylon is Babylon he says. I will not go into his explanation but it is interesting.

Clarence Larkin has a very interesting explanation which makes very good sense to me. He explains Mystery Babylon is the bride of Antichrist, a system composed of the religious, apostate church and the followers of all false religions. It stands to reason if Christ has a bride, antichrist, the counterfeit copycat will want a bride too right?

Larkin also explains that Paul calls the church a "Mystery" because the church was not known to the OT patriarchs and prophets. He also brought to light the city of Babylon was built on the Euphrates river, one of the rivers that flowed in the Garden of Eden. Both he and Walid make a compelling argument Satan is going to make or has made Babylon, Iraq his headquarters.
I appreciate their insights.

Oh. I have also read New York city is "mystery Babylon".

As for my thoughts and experiences in "Christianity", I have visited many a denomination, non-denomination and home group fellowships. Once I became Completely secure in my relationship with our Creator, I relaxed. I am far more comfortable and "real" outside an organized church or fellowship.

There are a lot of burned out believers who have stopped going to "church". There are also a lot of people who believe in God and want to get to know Him, do not want to go to "church".

And these are the people I like hanging out with. Seems to me that is what our Savior and Redeemer enjoyed doing too. :-). So I am following in His Footsteps.

However, many people on this forum are led by the Lord to fellowship in an organized church or home fellowship. I have no qualms. We are all ambassadors, vessels, instruments of God to be used by Him. If we are yielding to Him, His Peace and Blessings will envelop us. I do not like the organized church because if you do not like something the pastor is teaching, it is very hard to speak up without being blackballed.

The organized church by and large has turned into a big business machine. There is a lot of competition and division among them. I prefer the simplicity of the NT church life, especially the early, early church.

Well, I wrote more than I intended to.
May the Joy of the Lord and the Peace of God permeate each of your spirit, soul and every living cell in your mortal bodies.

Carol G

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

So I glanced at the forum and this thread grabbed my attention. After scanning people's thoughts, it seems the question ought really be "how has the LRC affected your view of "degraded Christianity".

I think Lee claimed Babylon was the world and or Christianity. I honestly do not remember nor does it matter what he said about Babylon.

countmeworthy,

I suppose you're technically right in what the question is asking. I used the term Babylon in the original post because from what I gathered about how WL did things, he referred to "normal Christianity" as "Babylon" as well as a host of other terms. I just picked that one rather arbitrarily. The actual city of Babylon itself is not what I'm referring to, and I think I clarified that in the original question, but it was so long ago that I don't remember if I did so properly.

[ToGodAlone]

Just as a note, it's interesting how the view of the church as an organization and a business is so prevalent here. I don't really see that within the church (though I guess that makes a bit of sense), but rather more outside the church among atheists looking for ways to discount the church.

To a degree I would agree that the church as become quite an organization, but it's far from one giant organization (other than that under the rule of Christ of course). Rather, I see it as many local organizations, very few of which have any kind of "authority" over another. I think that is kind of what many of you strive for in your church gatherings, that is, a group that is independent of any other group. That's what the LRC wanted to do, if my understanding is correct. One church one city meant each one was a local expression independent of the other churches, but all kind of working together. Well...I guess we all know how well that turned out for them, but in terms of mainstream Christianity, I actually think this is being put into practice quite well. Each church is an independent body, but they are always willing to partner together for a cause should a need arise.

It's just interesting how many of you after coming out of the LRC are trying so hard to into a gathering similar to that of the early church...a gathering that the LRC had originally tried to emulate. And I guess in terms of the original question, this is exactly what I'm getting at. Why is this what you look for? Several people have commented on this already. You may have to forgive me for saying so, but I think to a degree some of you might be acting too closed minded with regards to the type of gathering that we are "supposed" to be doing. I don't mean this in any way that you are wrong in thinking such a thought or anything like that, of course, so I hope you don't take it that way inadvertently.