Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Evidently you aren't capable of handling the reasoning I present, therefore this dialogue is meaningless...

rofl

I see, disect BDs reasoning, point out the flaws, point out the many times you confuse the issue (like every time you said "they never said magic hair" and BD spins that as "incapable of handling the reasoning I present"

That's funny

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

WOW!!!! You really do not believe that people have to be accountable for what they say, do you?

I guess that would explain quite a bit, you are operating on a whole different code of ethics than most other humans.

Again, it makes it very clear why it does absolutely no good to argue with you, you just do not have the capability to speak truth or operate within the confines of sane reasoning. It really is very sad.

It was unfortunate, but most likely intentional so he could come back later and spin what he said into something else

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

WOW!!!! You really do not believe that people have to be accountable for what they say, do you?

I guess that would explain quite a bit, you are operating on a whole different code of ethics than most other humans.

Again, it makes it very clear why it does absolutely no good to argue with you, you just do not have the capability to speak truth or operate within the confines of sane reasoning. It really is very sad.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It was unfortunate, but most likely intentional so he could come back later and spin what he said into something else

It's the same ol' same ol' ... "Touch not mine anointed..."

Those who object say: "But the so-called 'anointed' isn't even preaching out of the Bible! He's preaching out of an encyclopedia on witchcraft... !!!"

Those who protect false doctrine say: "You just have a bad attitude... or your (sic) bitter... or you don't understand my superior powers of reasoning to be anything other than sycophantic boot-licking..."

[DAII]

I hear the latest fad among Pentecost's metrosexuals is to keep their phones in Dolce Gabana fanny packs/man purses.

Originally Posted by pelathais

C'mon BobDylan, drop the name calling - at least most of it. "OCD and a desperate need for self affirmation" is okay but "ignorance?" Lighten up, Bro.

And did you really have to drop the fact that you own a trendy iPhone? Who are you trying to impress?

BobDylan: "I misspelled because I was wearing my Oakleys in my 'Beemer while texting on my iPhone with one hand and holding a Caffè latte in my other and steering by the knees of my North Face Windpants..."

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by pelathais

C'mon BobDylan, drop the name calling - at least most of it. "OCD and a desperate need for self affirmation" is okay but "ignorance?" Lighten up, Bro.

And did you really have to drop the fact that you own a trendy iPhone? Who are you trying to impress?

BobDylan: "I misspelled because I was wearing my Oakleys in my 'Beemer while texting on my iPhone with one hand and holding a Caffè latte in my other and steering by the knees of my North Face Windpants..."

Good one Pel.... Got a good chuckle out of that last bit! FTR, I didn't intend "ignorant" in a pejorative sense, but rather in the sense of not aware or having information, uninfirmed. My apologies to D Wright...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Good one Pel.... Got a good chuckle out of that last bit! FTR, I didn't intend "ignorant" in a pejorative sense, but rather in the sense of not aware or having information, uninfirmed. My apologies to D Wright...

Hey, we understand....right guys? It was just...well....an unfortunate choice of words

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Hey, we understand....right guys? It was just...well....an unfortunate choice of words

I have no problem with my choice of words! My apology is only for making room for misunderstanding. I would say the exact same thing again, with the disclaimer that my intention was not pejorative.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

rofl

I see, disect BDs reasoning, point out the flaws, point out the many times you confuse the issue (like every time you said "they never said magic hair" and BD spins that as "incapable of handling the reasoning I present"

That's funny

You call not addressing a single point I make, and attempting to assess flaws in reasoning you never addressed "disecting my argument"? THAT'S FUNNY!!!! Your still hung up on "magic hair", and I haven't even used that verbiage in several pages of detailed responses and reasoning. But if your still wringing your hands over something I said on page 5, I don't know what to say other that I am starting to feel sympathetic toward you for the dejection you must be feeling. I'll start being a little more compassionate... You poor thing....

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I agree with you here, in that if someone is teaching something incorrect, they need to be corrected. From what I have gathered, there is an effort on LS part to do just what you have suggested, "work on his presentation". Whether he changes position on his interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10 remains to be seen... If his emphasis on "compliance", with the directives of uncut hair for women and short hair for men from 1 Cor 11, were presented as issues of obedience and submission giving elevated authority in the spirit realm equally for both men and women, I think I could more strongly advocate for LS's unique interpretation. However, coupling LS's emphasis on possessing uncut hair solely, and his connection with this act and authority in the spirit realm for the woman to the seeming exclusion of the man, I can see are somewhat problematic.
Finally we have an admission of a problem with what is being said by LS!!!

I have offered a couple reasons why he may be doing this: 1.) This message does not "exclude" men from "authority in the spirit realm", but more accurately describes and emphasizes the unique position a woman has in their standing before God that men cannot obtain, and 2.) because the context of 1 Cor 11, the emphasized acts directly related to obedience and submission are uncut hair for women and short hair for men, and 3.) since LS is focusing on the woman's unique position before God and the emphasized act of obedience and submission connected to the context of 1 Cor 11, he therefore focuses primarily on the act of uncut hair as the issue directly connected to the woman's unique standing before God. Allow me to explain in more detail...

1.) Both genders possess unique positions in God's kingdom, and "in the spirit realm", that the other gender cannot possess. For instance, men are equipped to fill positions of authority and influence in the Church and in the family that women cannot fill. And the same is true for the woman. A man is not instructed to a.) have uncut hair, b.) be a keeper at home, c.) honor her husband, d.) keep silent in the church, e.) not teach or usurp authority over the man... etc. My point here being that women possess a position in the family, in the community, and in the Church that men "cannot" fill. To extend this into the "spirit realm" seems to be a natural extention, and I think this is what LS may be doing when he makes statements like "women are entagled with angels and have access to wisdom in a way a man cannot have". (not verbatim, but you know the quote I am referring to here). The same is true for the man, men are also "entangled with angels and have access to wisdom a woman cannot have". These statements may be true becuase of the unique positions each gender fills in the family, community, Church, and in the spirit realm before God.

Here's the problem. Christianity doesn't teach that men and women have different powers and authorities in the Spirit realm. Christianity teaches that men and women have different roles, but that there is one power and authority in the spirit realm, namely Jesus Christ. There is no scripture given anywhere that suggests women have spiritual insight that men don't have access to, for the simple fact that they are women. Every person whether man or woman has varying spiritual insights or wisdom at times. But you cannot show me anything where a woman is said to have a special insight simply because she is a woman. Again there are different roles of men and women, but its the same source of power, authority, insight and wisdom in the spiritual realm.

2.) From LS' message on "Order of Creation" from the text of 1 Cor 11, the sole acts that are emblematic of individual submission to God's order of headship and creation are the acts of a.) uncut hair for women, and b.) short hair for men...

Even if what you said on 1.) is true... Why does he never preach that a man keeping short hair gives a different but comparable kind of spiritual power and authority as a woman keeping uncut hair?

3.) This point is the natural logical flow from the previous two points. Since LS is focusing on the woman's unique standing before God, since his text is primarily the text of 1 Cor 11:4-16, and since this text emphasizes the act of uncut hair for women as the emblem of submission to God's authority and her unique postion, LS therefore seems to focus on the act of uncut hair directly relating to the woman's unique standing before God and her authority in the Spirit realm to the seeming exclusion of the man.

Maybe it's just the focus. I'm still wondering why HMH is never preached about men's short hair though... EVER. I mean I can see why it might not be preached as often and thats okay. But it's not ever preached...

Conclusion: LS is focusing this message on the woman's submission, emblem of submission, and her unique standing before God from the text of 1 Cor 11. Why doesn't he include the man in this message? Because this is not the focus of this particular message. There are countless numbers of messages that are preached that focus on the man's position, authority, and insight into the spirit realm, but in this message is primarily focused on the woman's position. (FTR, when I heard him preach this message recently, he did in fact address man's position before God, AND having short hair, but only briefly.)Why the seeming emphasis on uncut hair? Because this is the emblem of submission to God's order of creation, and woman's unique standing before God in that order, that is prescribed from the text of 1 Cor 11 that LS uses to develop the foundation for his message. I think most of LS's statement that people are objecting to (at least here on this forum) are the result of this approach and focus.

It's not about this particular message. Who cares. It's that hes NEVER preached a message to men using these same principles that he is using in the womens message. Women get special power and authority due to their submission to the "order of creation". If it's not about the long hair then men do also. And we should have just as many miracles being attributed to men's short cut hair then. I mean wouldn't that make an even more astounding and inclusive message that would bless everyone? But LS isn't preaching the part about men even though it would be easy to tie in. So easy in fact that we must think he is not tying it in for a very specific reason...
...

...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I have no problem with my choice of words! My apology is only for making room for misunderstanding. I would say the exact same thing again, with the disclaimer that my intention was not pejorative.

It was an unfortunate instance of using a vague word and not being more specific