Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

My guess is that Bob Dylan is a relatively young man who thinks he knows it all. Furthermore, he probably feels that its a disgrace to admit that he is wrong, so now he's working on this incredibly ridiculous defense of the indefensible just so he won't have to admit his error.

This is a sign of someone who is not quite confident enough with their own knowledge to be able to say "You're right, I'm wrong".

Hopefully, one day he'll get there, because one cannot be a great leader without the ability to admit that you may be mistaken.

I agree with Michael's analysis here.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But, Michael! He has an iphone! Doesn't that make him credible in some way?!

There ya go! I'm not cool enough to own an iphone.

I'm a PC.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

My guess is that Bob Dylan is a relatively young man who thinks he knows it all. Furthermore, he probably feels that its a disgrace to admit that he is wrong, so now he's working on this incredibly ridiculous defense of the indefensible just so he won't have to admit his error.

This is a sign of someone who is not quite confident enough with their own knowledge to be able to say "You're right, I'm wrong".

Hopefully, one day he'll get there, because one cannot be a great leader without the ability to admit that you may be mistaken.

Reminds me of your typical Young Earth/Old Earth debate. LOL

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

This is what I am saying!

Also, he has apparently spent waaaaay to much time alone with a thesaurus... although I am not quite sure that he has all the definitions down correctly...

You're admitting your own feelings of insufficiency... You may be a little intimidated attempting to converse with someone who uses a more extensive vocabulary than yourself. Do you personally identify with the necessity of having writing aids at your immediate access? It's alright, I sympathize with your plight, although not all of us need thesauri to speak, or write, at a higher level. The fact that you're "not quite sure" whether or not I "have all the definitions down correctly" certainly speaks more about yourself than it does about me! Good try though.. I will at least commend you for your effort here! Keep it up, you'll get better!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jfrog I just want to add first of all unless this man talked to LS he has no way of knowing what LS is doing.

You are correct, I have no idea what LS is doing, or his specific motivation behind the way he presents his message the way he does. What I have done in my theory, the one that jfrog responded to conderately here, is my attempt to give LS the benefit of the doubt and figure out his reasoning in a way that would put him and his intention in the most noble light. I WANT to give LS the benefit of the doubt here, which is unlike what others want to do. I do not believe LS is trying to overtly encourage any practice outside of biblical instruction. I am trying to prove him innocent, you guys are trying to prove him guilty, thus the fundamental difference in perception and perspective.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

HOWEVER if he realized his hoodoo voodoo presentation of the occult is wrong he NEEDS to do more than making an adjustment to how he presents it but come out and tell his followers "I was wrong to say that, please forgive me. I don't want any of you to be under the impression that we should do this because they do it" etc etc

One time Prax, one time that I have observed, in the Memphis clip from two years ago, has he made reference to "occult"... I do not believe his intention is "hoodoo voodoo"... As I stated many times, I believe his reference of that was to draw the contrast between what the witches feel they have (i.e. power in their hair), and what we have (i.e. the "Word of God", and "more power than anything else in the world"... his own words). You are not giving LS the benefit of the doubt, and are bent on proving him guilty. I, on the other hand, am doing what I can, with as much reasoning and benefit of the doubt that I can offer, to prove him innocent.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

You are correct, I have no idea what LS is doing, or his specific motivation behind the way he presents his message the way he does. What I have done in my theory, the one that jfrog responded to conderately here, is my attempt to give LS the benefit of the doubt and figure out his reasoning in a way that would put him and his intention in the most noble light. I WANT to give LS the benefit of the doubt here, which is unlike what others want to do. I do not believe LS is trying to overtly encourage any practice outside of biblical instruction. I am trying to prove him innocent, you guys are trying to prove him guilty, thus the fundamental difference in perception and perspective.



One time Prax, one time that I have observed, in the Memphis clip from two years ago, has he made reference to "occult"... I do not believe his intention is "hoodoo voodoo"... As I stated many times, I believe his reference of that was to draw the contrast between what the witches feel they have (i.e. power in their hair), and what we have (i.e. the "Word of God", and "more power than anything else in the world"... his own words). You are not giving LS the benefit of the doubt, and are bent on proving him guilty. I, on the other hand, am doing what I can, with as much reasoning and benefit of the doubt that I can offer, to prove him innocent.

How am I not giving him the benefit of the doubt? I admitted that if he did change his message, like you said, he NEEDS to get up everywhere he goes and denounce that previous message.

if the only time he preached this was in Mephis, we still have an issue of a lot of others hearing.

Further if his intent was never to teach that women can let down their hair to release the power or the angels, he needs to denounce that.

As I said before

the ISSUE is 3 fold

What LS teaches

The Methods he used

The actions of those that heard him

We have here on this board entered into evidece what he teaches, his methods AND quotes from people that heard his teaching and his method and what the results are.

If he realizes that method was wrong and the results are wrong, he needs to address that and let them know that was never his intention

I've given LS the benefit of the doubt for years. Addressing the message as I have is not saying LS is bad or evil, is not akin to not giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

How am I not giving him the benefit of the doubt? I admitted that if he did change his message, like you said, he NEEDS to get up everywhere he goes and denounce that previous message.

if the only time he preached this was in Mephis, we still have an issue of a lot of others hearing.

Further if his intent was never to teach that women can let down their hair to release the power or the angels, he needs to denounce that.

As I said before

the ISSUE is 3 fold

What LS teaches

The Methods he used

The actions of those that heard him

We have here on this board entered into evidece what he teaches, his methods AND quotes from people that heard his teaching and his method and what the results are.

If he realizes that method was wrong and the results are wrong, he needs to address that and let them know that was never his intention

I've given LS the benefit of the doubt for years. Addressing the message as I have is not saying LS is bad or evil, is not akin to not giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

Prax, I appreciate this response. I cannot say that I disagree with you wholly, as I see that the actions you'd like to observe from LS would be noteworthy, and would go a long way to reconciling misunderstanding regarding his teaching.

[D. Wright]

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...

Acknowledged.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

the ISSUE is 3 fold

What LS teaches

The Methods he used

The actions of those that heard him

I am going to attempt to crystalize the three areas of concern. You may be able to add more, others may as well:

1.) What LS teaches:

1. A woman ought not cut her hair
2. A woman who does not cut her hair has power (authority, liberty, freedom) because of (by, through, or with) the angels (I think this is near an exact quote of LS).
3. A woman has access to authority in the spirit realm because of her obedeince in not cutting her hair that a man does not and cannot have

2.) Methods LS uses that are deemed objectionable

1. Allusions and references to witchcraft and occultic understanding of the hair
2. Multiplicitous andectodes referencing woman who have laid their hair out on people or prayer requests, resulting in affirmative responses from God on behalf of these prayers

3.)Actions of those that heard LS teaching this message

1. Women laying hair out over prayer requests
2. women laying hair out over people
3. Women in conferences letting their hair down and shaking it
4. Women appealing to God referencing their uncut hair in order to convince or pursuade God to answer their requests affirmatively
5. The phenomenon of women letting their hair down spreading to other areas of the fellowship

Do I have this correct, or am I missing something?

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I am going to attempt to crystalize the three areas of concern. You may be able to add more, others may as well:

1.) What LS teaches:

1. A woman ought not cut her hair
2. A woman who does not cut her hair has power (authority, liberty, freedom) because of (by, through, or with) the angels (I think this is near an exact quote of LS).
3. A woman has access to authority in the spirit realm because of her obedeince in not cutting her hair that a man does not and cannot have

2.) Methods LS uses that are deemed objectionable

1. Allusions and references to witchcraft and occultic understanding of the hair
2. Multiplicitous andectodes referencing woman who have laid their hair out on people or prayer requests, resulting in affirmative responses from God on behalf of these prayers

3.)Actions of those that heard LS teaching this message

1. Women laying hair out over prayer requests
2. women laying hair out over people
3. Women in conferences letting their hair down and shaking it
4. Women appealing to God referencing their uncut hair in order to convince or pursuade God to answer their requests affirmatively
5. The phenomenon of women letting their hair down spreading to other areas of the fellowship

Do I have this correct, or am I missing something?

.............and you are just fine with all this BD ????