Read Segraves on "letting down hair" - Page 15

Praxeas · #**141** 03-09-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I read RRH's book back in 99, and didn't think of it as problematic. I do see, in retrospect, how some statements she made are problematic. There is nothing in her book, however, that teaches holy magic hair, or laying hair on people.

I have only heard LS twice in person, and you are correct, I probably haven't done adequate research on this. But I did hear him teach on the hair issue as recently as two weeks ago. I thought he did a great job, this my motivation to enter the fray. If you get a chance, read the last couple paragraphs on my last response to Prax, it explains my motivation a little. I do thank you for the courteous responses, even in disagreement!

Once again BD obfuscates. If RR does not use the words HOly Magic Hair, then she does not teach it. She DOES teach it, the doctrine. She does not use the words "magic"

Praxeas · #**142** 03-09-2010, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Red herring? ROFL!!!!

You're the one that made the website: "HOLY MAGIC HAIR", ....

You are the KING of red herring! lol... Actually, that's more of a strawman. You are attacking a doctrine that NO ONE HAS EVER TAUGHT. You are building up some mythical doctrine by using clips, snippets, and quotes from books, anecdotal testimonies, etc. and saying "here is the false doctrine of Holy Magic Hair, akin to divine flesh, that is being propogated by LS and the UPC.

Again, YOU are the KING of red herring AND strawman! lol...

BIG STRAWMAN!!!! ROFLMHO!!!!

Since a "red herring" is a non-argument that detracts from the issue, his website is not a red herring.

Since a strawman is an argument that seeks to mischaracterize someone's view and then attack it, DA's website is also not a strawman either simply because it's title is "Holy Magic Hair". He does not claim the proponents call it Holy Magic Hair.

DAII · #**143** 03-09-2010, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Since a "red herring" is a non-argument that detracts from the issue, his website is not a red herring.

Since a strawman is an argument that seeks to mischaracterize someone's view and then attack it, DA's website is also not a strawman either simply because it's title is "Holy Magic Hair". He does not claim the proponents call it Holy Magic Hair.

Yet he has accused Tek of immorality and that I seek to destroy the person of LS. What is good for the goose apparently is not good for the gander.

He pretends to be open-minded and seeking full context while filling in gaps left by LS ... and claims not to be engaged in marginalization ... however has accused a bishop of immorality. This accusation has support?

DAII · #**144** 03-09-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Once again BD obfuscates. If RR does not use the words HOly Magic Hair, then she does not teach it. She DOES teach it, the doctrine. She does not use the words "magic"

Hitler never called his Final Solution ... the Holocaust. That doesn't mean the Holocaust didn't happen.

Praxeas · #**145** 03-09-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

Yet he has accused Tek of immorality and that I seek to destroy the person of LS. What is good for the goose apparently is not good for the gander.

He pretends to be open-minded and seeking full context ... and not to be engaged in marginalization ... however has accused a bishop of immorality. This accusation has support?

Yeah I got a laugh when he told me he was just taking an objective look

Praxeas · #**146** 03-09-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

Hitler never called his Final Solution ... the Holocaust. That doesn't mean the Holocaust didn't happen.

lol...true

I suppose if Trinitarians did not call it the Trinity BD would accept it

DAII · #**147** 03-09-2010, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oh my. I just got it! BobDylan is right! Don't you guys see? This was really LS being funny. Notice he said "entangled"? LS was not teaching HMH, he was MOCKING IT!

He did this in 1996 before the website came out in 2007?

DAII · #**148** 03-09-2010, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

BobDylan, you keep focusing on Dan as being the main objector to this doctrine, but he's not. He's one objector, but not the only one. You seem to think that because he doesn't believe I Cor. 11 teaches uncut hair that he has an agenda, and therefore his opinion doesn't carry much weight.

Well, regardless of how you feel about Dan or his motives, he's not the only one objecting. I recently, WITH MY OWN EYES, saw a woman take the pins out of her hair, and lay it on top of someone who was praying. My dad was there, and he is a STAUNCH "uncut hair is a heaven or hell issue" person, and he thought that was LUNACY. He strongly objects to this "power in the hair" or "power with the angels" teaching.

Numerous people have been present when women were "taking down their hair", and pictures have also been posted. They are getting this idea somewhere. Many churches believe the Bible teaches that women shouldn't wear gold or pearls, but you don't hear messages about laying your "non-jewelried" hands on people because there is power there!

This is a mistaken doctrine that is gaining a foothold, and it needs to be corrected.

It's all he and other supporters have left in defense of the indefensible... conspiracy theories, obfuscation and victimization.

It's the same spirit and modus operandi behind those who deny the Holocaust ... When it comes to this topic, BD has more in common with Baghdad Bob and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than he has with the apostle Paul.

Praxeas · #**149** 03-09-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

It's all he and other supporters have left in defense of the indefensible... conspiracy theories, obfuscation and victimization.

It's the same spirit and modus operandi behind those who deny the Holocaust ... When it comes to this topic, BD has more in common with Baghdad Bob and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than he has with the apostle Paul.

That is funny! LOL...I was thinking BD could have been Bush's Press Secretary

BobDylan · #**150** 03-09-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

BobDylan, you keep focusing on Dan as being the main objector to this doctrine, but he's not. He's one objector, but not the only one. You seem to think that because he doesn't believe I Cor. 11 teaches uncut hair that he has an agenda, and therefore his opinion doesn't carry much weight.

Ok... the only direct source that I have for the verbiage "holy magic hair" is DA... perhaps the verbiage originated before this. "Holy Magic Hair" is a strawman, and does not accurately describe the points of contention of those who have an objection to how LS and RRH present their ideas. "Holy Magic Hair" implies that these people are teaching "magical power in hair", and the verbiage used, as well as the way incomplete resources are linked together seem to "validate" this assertion. I can take several resources drom scripture and prove that the bible teaches "holy magic garment hems", or "holy magic spit balls", or show that the scripture teaches us to commit suicide: "and Judas hanged himself... therefore go thou and do likewise". But this is a dishonest handling of the scripture. Claiming LS and RRH teach "Holy Magic Hair" is a dishonest handing of what they are teaching, and it plays well into the agendas of those who reject 1 Cor 11 uncut hair teaching. I do see how people who believe and teach uncut hair could have a problem with the antics and verbiage LS, and RRH seem to be advocating, and I see how some of it needs to be addressed and corrected. But I do not believe they are teaching a mythical doctrine of "Holy Magic Hair" that implies they believe in magical powers in the substance of uncut hair. It's nonsense. Let's discuss the verbiage, address the problems, encourage those who are speaking as such to calibrate their language and approach, but let's not defame and destroy good people, or true 1 Cor 11 uncut hair doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Well, regardless of how you feel about Dan or his motives, he's not the only one objecting. I recently, WITH MY OWN EYES, saw a woman take the pins out of her hair, and lay it on top of someone who was praying. My dad was there, and he is a STAUNCH "uncut hair is a heaven or hell issue" person, and he thought that was LUNACY. He strongly objects to this "power in the hair" or "power with the angels" teaching.

I can sympathize with the position of your dad. I would agree that there is no "power in the hair", and I would be skeptical toward the assertion of "power with the angels", depending on how the individual further developed that thought. I am also leary of laying hair on people, but do concede, as DKB asserts in his paper, that this type of unconventional act can be helpful in "focusing faith" to believe God for a miracle. I think it certainly is a pastor's responsibility to teach his congregants regarding this, and either encourage or dissuade his parishioners from such a practice while communicating understanding regarding it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Numerous people have been present when women were "taking down their hair", and pictures have also been posted. They are getting this idea somewhere. Many churches believe the Bible teaches that women shouldn't wear gold or pearls, but you don't hear messages about laying your "non-jewelried" hands on people because there is power there!

This is a mistaken doctrine that is gaining a foothold, and it needs to be corrected.

I would agree that, while this type of unconventional act that mobilizes and focuses individual faith can be beneficial (as are other similar kinds of unconventional acts, i.e. laying under shadows of apostles, prayer cloths, touching hems of garments, etc. etc.), it should not rise to the level of doctrine or a formulaic teaching where it may be implied that any time an individual does this "act" there will be an affirmative response from God for their prayers. God takes note of the prayers of the faithful regardless. I am seeing your point and agree there needs to be some correction, ammendment, or update in more theologically accurate language.