Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Phelps
Sorry, BD, I'm not going to play anymore. You've so handily humiliated me with your wit and retort that I'm shamefully hiding my head in shame. 
But, let me just offer up a slight explanation of why I asked if "Jesus would respond this way". One of my pet peeves with religion is that people can get on a soap box and heartily defend one of their "truths", but do so in a way that is in direct violation of a very plain principle in the Word of God. But, that's ok, because they don't have to follow Jesus, they just have to follow their tradition. That's the point I was trying to make. |
You can easily make that point without making it personal!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Phelps
You vociferously defend LS and his propogation of this "doctrine", and yet you brag about the fact that you'll repay with an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" mindset, instead of following the words of Jesus and turning the other cheek.
|
Part of forum communication, especially the fun part, is the competitive aspect and exhange of wit, TIC, satire, personality, etc... It's one of the things that make forum exchange engaging and challenging. Also, there are good amounts of serious information, argument, and debate that can take place. You don't get one without the other... it's the nature of forumese. You should know this as well as anyone... "Eye for an eye" is quite different than "tit for tat". I was doing "tit for tat", not "eye for an eye"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Phelps
I apologize that I used you for a public display of such incongruity, but it was just so convenient!
|
As were my responses to you, dizzy, and others!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Phelps
And, jfrog, you are correct. Jesus probably wouldn't be doing what I'm doing. The difference is, I'm not trying to defend a ridiculous anti-scriptural heresy. You wouldn't find Jesus doing that in the first place, so the point is somewhat irrelevant.
However, when conversing with the Pharisees, how did Jesus handle it? Go find some scriptural references, they're really quite interesting!
|
Please allow me to make my motivations clear. I am not trying to defend heresy. I am a new kid on the block regarding this debate/discussion. I have only recently heard LS present his "hair" message, having been invited by a local pastor who told me during the service "this is the so-called magic hair message". I listened discriminately, and found nothing overtly objectionable in his message that night, and rather thought he did an outstanding job. There were also miracles that I personally witnessed in that service, and prayed with at least two who received the Holy Ghost for the first time.
I get online on a couple different forums and asked the questions "what is Magic Hair doctrine". Snippets, clips, excerpts from books, anecdotes, and picture of a lady laying her hair out over prayer requests were offered. I found no teaching of "magic in the hair". As Praxeas has assisted me in crystalizing, this was not the objection as no one has accused LS of saying there was "magic powers in the hair" (I find the title "holy magic hair" to be quite misleading).
My motivation to defend LS is part of my own individual investigation, to see if his statements, teachings, and restults can be defended. I have offered reasoning, which both jfrom and Prax has responded to, as to how the "magic hair" phenomenon has spread. I concluded there were unnecessary resources and references used in at least one of LS' messages. I have suggested that some of his statements could be intended in other ways that the way they are being exploited, and the phenomenon of women laying hair out is a grass-roots "folk theology" over reaction to what LS has or is teaching. I do not think LS is teaching heresy or false doctrine.
As Prax has pointed out, his teaching coupled with his methodology and the responses of those who hear his teaching, without more effort on LS's part to more thoroughly exegete his teaching so as to avert misunderstanding or misguided perceptions, has contributed to the current state of this phenomenon.
Others have accused LS and tried to find him guilty, I have taken the other approach and simply tried to prove him innocent. I have no motivation other than my own curiosity and interest. I have found no complicit culpability on the part of LS to knowingly promote false doctrine or heresy. However I do think a few statements and more thorough teaching when he presents his hair message would go a long way to avoiding some of these effusive responses and evident inaccuracies in individual understanding regarding what he is saying in his message.
Thanks for the moderated response here...
Hybrid Mode
