Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[Praxeas]

More obfuscation. We have told you over and over and over and over we are not saying you or anyone else believes in "magical powers" in the hair, you use this as a red herring to avoid the real argument

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

More obfuscation. We have told you over and over and over and over we are not saying you or anyone else believes in "magical powers" in the hair, you use this as a red herring to avoid the real argument

I just spent a stinking hour, offering a detailed response to your last rebuttal... and I stinking lost it becuase of my internet connection! I am stinking frustrated right now! lol...

I am not attempting an overt obfuscation... I think the terminology "holy magic hair" is clearly overt obfuscation. But my disagreement with yours and DA's analysis is more than obfuscation. In lieu of more detalied rebuttals, obfustcation is an easy response. I don't have time to detail everything, although I have attempted, and my detalied responese, reasoning, and analysis are regarded as non-sequitor, or disregarded althogether. When you are doing the same thing. The only issue is, because of human nature, there is a human tendency you have tapped into in people that seems to need to believe the worst about people. As is often said, it takes ten positive things to refute one negative thing that is said. I am under no illusion that my singular effort to respond to yours, DA's, or other unreasonable assertions will significantly sway opinions, but I do like the challenge nonetheless... part of my "human nature".

[freeatlast]

Strong delusion comes to mind.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You made this whole thing about what LS teaches and the authority about obedience. You obfuscate the fact or spin doctor it, that LS makes authority NOT about obedience but about uncut hair. Again this is made acutely obvious when he cites resources on witchcraft and the hair. He does NOT make it merely about obedience for if he did he would in his sermons on obedience to other issues like not committing adultery, mention that if you are obedient you will have authority.

You have failed to acknowledge the point I have made about the context of 1 Cor 11. The passage itself relates the acts of obedience, in uncut hair for women and cut hair to men, directly to obedience and submission. These principles and instructions, in this context, are completely inextricable. Your attempt to disassociate uncut hair on women and short hair on men from submission is not relavent in the context of 1 Cor 11. Any message on 1 Cor 11 that deals with authority, submission, and uncut hair, it is implied that uncut hair for women and short for men relates directly to individual sumbission. This is the fact. Your attempt to disassociate uncut hair from submssion in your analysys of LS's message is not consistent with the context of his texts, and is the sole reason for your blatant misunderstanding of his points. His messages are about submission to God's order of creation, and primarily in the act of obedience of uncut hair on women, and short for men. This is an inextricable consideration, no matter how much you try to disassociate it for your own purposes and agenda.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Everyone here realizes that the only reason you resorted to sophomoric attempts at being pejorative above is you really have a losing case.

My attempts at "pejorative" are sophmoric because I have a "losing case"... but your attempts are an "effort to expose false doctrine"? ROFL... good one! As you said previously: "good grief"! lol...

Originally Posted by Praxeas

prove it! This man, BobDylan, has made several assertions and has been asked to prove it and not once has he. Further the context here is not about hair but headship. BD doesn't catch the error he just made as well...if it's really about what you just said and this is the correlation with authority, Paul would have argued WE have authority because WE obey this law of short hair on men and uncut hair on women. He does not.

Paul is the one who writes of uncut hair on women and short hair on men in the context of headship, authority, order. He is the one that made the direct correlation between uncut hair on women and short hair on men and these principles... not LS. LS uses the context of the text to make his points, that uncut hair on women and short hair on men are directly associated with authority and God's order.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Quote him please.

I'll do what I can when I can. At this moment, I only have one clip transcribed, from about 21:00 to 24:00 from the Memphis meeting. I will attempt to have the Visalia meeting transcribed soon in an effort to have more information regarding LS's points. Give me time here. Thanks...

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The issue isn't that women should obey and not cut their hair. The context however in 1cor is headship and order of creation, the hair stuff follows THAT.

No problem with this statement...

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Quote him please. You say "implied" but really that to everyone here means "This is how Im spinning it". It's your assertion but you can assert all day long. You might as well assert LS was teaching that green cows with wings fly out of his rear end on the last day of each month...PROOF is essential. All you are doing is telling us what LS "really meant"...good grief I can spin what anyone says...that does not make it true. Was LS really, in your opinion, THAT vague, that you can tell us what he IMPLIED contrary to what it seems to everyone else here? Not to mention the myriads of women OUT THERE that are posting how they have supernatural power in their hair, that it's not their obedience but their uncut hair?

What I am doing is "spin", but what you are doing is "accurate analysis"? lol... You are spinning LS's statements as much as anyone else, for your own purposes and agenda... whatever that may be.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

LS does NOT say ANY TIME "Ladies, you have POWER because you have obeyed"

He didn't say those words verbatim. But that doesn't mean he didn't imply it! It is implies by the way he developed the message about the order of creation, submission to that order, and the immediate context of 1 Cor 11 makes the acts of obedience of uncut hair for women and short hair for men inextricable from authority in the spirit realm because of individual devotion and obedience.

But then again, he also didn't say he believed the "substance of hair has magical powers", but that doesn't stop you and DA from implying that he did or that he believes as much! Thus the indentifier "Holy Magic Hair".

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He makes an emphatic argument that Ladies have POWER due to uncut hair AND that it's really all about the hair. How do we know? Because as part of his "setting up" for his delivery he quotes sources on witchcraft who all say there is something special about the HAIR! Not that there is something special about obeying God.

how do you know exactly why LS starts with a foundation of obedience and submission? Did you ask him why? Gee...you know you could be right, Maybe LS just threw that stuff in about a witches hair for absolutely NO REASON related to his message on hair.

Good grief

"why I think"? Eh...so you did not ask LS why? Hey. LS did not quote anything saying "witches have power" he quoted the resources where witches believe they have special powers IN THEIR HAIR, HAIR. Get it? HAIR.

Before we get back into what LS said and why he quotes sources on witches. Consider also this OTHER proponent on this doctrine of power in uncut hair

How do you spin that? What do witches know that we should? Hmmm?

Here is what LS says
"Let's talk about the spiritual significance of hair"..why? What POSSIBLE reason could LS want to talk about that in this message on a woman's uncut hair? That was certainly unfortunate to interject something that has NOTHING to do with his message? Clearly this is a PART OF HIS MESSAGE

It pertains to what he wants to get across about HAIR.

The Spiritual significance of HAIR..what does he quote? He quotes extra biblical sources on the occult.

"Let's talk about the SPIRITUAL significance of hair. If only Christians knew what witches and new agers know"

Tell us Mr Spindoctor, what do witches and new agers know that we do not.

"They don't seem to get the message but they KNOW THINGS" huh? LS is saying they know things...what things do THEY know that Christians do not? Unfortunate? Yes it is but it was also a part of his message. He introduces it to set up what he wants US TO KNOW about hair.

"They (witches) know there is power on the head because of what we do with our hair"

He does not say "they know there is authority in obedience"

He does not say "They are mistaken"

He says THEY KNOW! THEY KNOW!

"What God meant for good (power on the head because of what we do with our hair) the devil wants to use for evil"

Nothing there about obedience

Consider the last thing LS says

"Think of the “classic image” of a witch … it is a woman with long, scraggly uncut hair. WHY? Because the evil side of the supernatural realm knows there is power associated with hair!"

LS says the evil side KNOWS there is power associated with hair..They KNOW that. LS does not say "they are mistaken in that, the power is associated with obedience".

BD it's obvious to anyone that can read WHY LS quoted all that junk.

This is an implied inferrence, and not based in fact. It's non-factual, and non sequitor. Good try... It is only "obvious" to koolaid drinkers who think you and DA are the authority on what LS teaches because of a few clips you have taken advantage of. Allow me to try to present, AGAIN, why he appeals to sources on witchcraft.

I am often alluded to the parallel between the cheering crown and why LS is attempting to make reference to in his appeal to sources of witchcraft.

Consider that the secular world understands that the synergy created by a cheering crowd can urge their team on to victory. This is often noted by obsevation that "home teams have the advantage". The secular world understands these universal laws of synergy, and they access them in their cheering. Our preachers say "if they can shout, and dance, and hoop and holler and urge their teams on to victory, what could we do when we engage in spiritual warfare, and praise God with everything in us. They are appealing to universal laws of nature, but we as children of God are appealing to the creator of those laws!"... In my analysys of LS's comments from the Memphis meeting, from about 21:00 to 24:00, he is making a similar parallel.

LS notes in previous portions in his message, that there are advantages to individual submission to God's order in creation. He basis his message about order of creation. He uses sources of witchcraft to show how the occult attempts to access these advantages.

Allow me to digress here for a minute. Anyone who submits to God's laws will gain the advantage. If a banker or businessman subscribes to God's laws of financial stewardship in the Bible, they will find that their businesses flourishing. If individuals subscribe to these ordinances, their personal finances will flourish. If parents train their children right, their children will not depart from their ways. And the list goes on and on regarding God's established laws, and the benefits people will gain, whether believer or not, by subscribing to those laws... but I digress.

Again, my analysis of LS's appeal to occult sources from the Memphis message. LS takese 20+ minutes to prove that God has instituted an order in his creation where individuals submitted that order can gain advantage and authority in the Spirit realm. God made this order primarily for his people. Just like the laws of synergy that cheering fans access, those laws were made by God for His children. LS's shows how witchcraft unsuccessfully attempts to access these laws by their practices of spells, and emphasis on the material substance of hair.

Please note LS's verbiage. I am quoting verbatim from my own transcription of this segment of his message. LS's states "a witches magical power is bound in her hair"... but he doesn't stop there, he continues on "but we have the Word of God". He then goes on "what could our women do?" He further states "we have a power unlike anything else in the world!"? LS is not saying our women have power in their uncut hair. He does say that according to the witches belief, her "magical power is bound in her hair", but he goes on and clearly states that our obedient and submitted women have access to a power that supercedes the material substance of her hair, "we have the Word of God..." and "... we have more power than anything else in the world". He is clearly saying that the authority our women have is NOT bound in her hair only, but is substantiated by the laws established by our creator for those who would submit in faith and obedience to his word, including the instructions in 1 Cor 11 of uncut hair on women and short hair on men.

I do not, for the life of me, see why you can not even acknowledge my analysis as a probably intent of LS, if at the least a possible one! But your insistence on settling on the worst possible intent speaks more of your character and motivations than it does LS's statements that are not given due diligence and benefit. Your whole approach speaks of agenda and ignoble motivation, whatever they are, which are beyond me. If you cannot even acknowledge what I am saying in my analysis as a possible intent of LS, you and I are not even going to be be able to have a discussion, let alone formal debate.

Good luck... I hope your endeavors to destroy a man and ministry unwarranted bring you much happiness and joy.

[DAII]

Tiger, when you get a chance please address your accusation of Bishop Tek in which you have stated that he has acted immorally, unethically and subverted the work under his charge in Ethiopia.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I just spent a stinking hour, offering a detailed response to your last rebuttal... and I stinking lost it becuase of my internet connection! I am stinking frustrated right now! lol...

I am not attempting an overt obfuscation... I think the terminology "holy magic hair" is clearly overt obfuscation. But my disagreement with yours and DA's analysis is more than obfuscation. In lieu of more detalied rebuttals, obfustcation is an easy response. I don't have time to detail everything, although I have attempted, and my detalied responese, reasoning, and analysis are regarded as non-sequitor, or disregarded althogether. When you are doing the same thing. The only issue is, because of human nature, there is a human tendency you have tapped into in people that seems to need to believe the worst about people. As is often said, it takes ten positive things to refute one negative thing that is said. I am under no illusion that my singular effort to respond to yours, DA's, or other unreasonable assertions will significantly sway opinions, but I do like the challenge nonetheless... part of my "human nature".

Obfuscation is the word because you are arguing ad nausuem that nobody teaches "magic hair".

and every time you have done that 3-4 of us have reminded you...reminded you, we are not saying LS or RR says "magic hair".

Over and over like repeating yourself "wins" the argument you fall back to the same thing "they never say magic hair"...ok why do you do that? We got it. You disagree with the term "Holy Magic Hair"..that is a non-sequitor to our argument.

[oletime]

Originally Posted by DAII

TEK what?



Care to support these accusations?

Hole getting deeper, champ.

For the record DA ?, not that im in agreement with Bd 's attemps to argue this so called hmh, But yes i would say tek has been guilty of a lot, he and his followers have had another missionary put in jail with false accusations,he was beaten terribly(this is how they roll over there, you lie to a goverment offial and they seize you immediately) and they have stolen property , property that was acquired and buildings were built on, by churches in this country , by making accusations and telling lies ,This property was then seized (i cant remember the name of this missionary, but i have heard him speak more then once ) He refused to accept the teachings of tek and has garnered a huge following of people who have left tek and his followers.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by DAII

Tiger, when you get a chance please address your accusation of Bishop Tek in which you have stated that he has acted immorally, unethically and subverted the work under his charge in Ethiopia.

FTR Big Flatus, I was not speaking of immorality as in sexual immorality... i was speaking of the types of immoral acts oletyme was speaking of. I have heard first hand reports from pastors who I have preached for who are in direct connection with the Ethiopia work, what was left of it after Tek exited, and the persecution of those who reject Tek's "bishoprick" and teaching. I have no evidence particularly... and I am not on any kind of effort to discredit him, have no agenda against him, no dog in the fight. Are you a Tek supporter? If so, your attempts to parallel Tek with LS has lost all credibility, in that you seem to be advocating the type of treatment toward LS that you disdained toward Tek. Speak of hypocrisy! lol....

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Obfuscation is the word because you are arguing ad nausuem that nobody teaches "magic hair".

and every time you have done that 3-4 of us have reminded you...reminded you, we are not saying LS or RR says "magic hair".

Over and over like repeating yourself "wins" the argument you fall back to the same thing "they never say magic hair"...ok why do you do that? We got it. You disagree with the term "Holy Magic Hair"..that is a non-sequitor to our argument.

Labelling your argument against LS teaching as "Holy Magic Hair" is a blatant misrepresenation, and implies that you are suggesting LS teaches "supernatural powers in the hair". You have said it yourself, whether you used the word "magical powers in the hair" verbatim or not. Now you are trying to get by with what you are accusing LS of. You are saying "I didn't say he said he believes in 'magic powers in the hair'", while the whole time saying "LS is teaching supernatural powers in the hair". Call it what you want, supernatural, magical, etc... you are accusing LS of teaching something he is not teaching. Your advocacy of DA's website further discredits your objection to LS's message.

If you want to clarify and define our language here, I'd be glad to do so, so as to avoid your obbseive preoccupation with "obfuscating" and "non-sequitors". I would rather reason through this, than debate, acknowledging each other's strong points and weaknesses, and being intellectually honest about our relative positions, finding common ground where we can, and identifying our differences and why. Or we can resort to debate tactics that are inneffective in advancing communication and mutual understanding. The ball is in your court, in that I am trying!