HAC School Year of 2012-13

HAC_Rebel2014 said:
Just want to tell a story for no particular reason.

Don't know if anyone will even read this.

Life as an HAC student in the 2012-2013 school year...
Click to expand...
Is it safe to assume that you either never heard of what was revealed in 1989 or did you think things would be different?
 
I can tell you this. I have been involved off and on with the Cowboy Church movement with the American Fellowship of Cowboy Churches (AFCC out of Texas) for the last few years. Many of these men have what some IFB conservatives would consider long hair, but I find that many have more moral character and Christianity in their person than most IFB people I've known throughout my life. I'll take a long-haired cowboy preacher, or even an SBC preacher over the IFB Pharisees any day. Most people would be hard-pressed to find any IFB preacher who was Christlike in their attitude and actions towards a sinner.
 
voicecrying said:
You also have to consider what exactly Paul was addressing in the entire passage.
Click to expand...
Very true! I hate it when these Pharisees try to use this passage, and then try to throw in the story of Absolom and his long hair being stuck in a tree! What in the world does one have to do with the other? NOTHING! Many IFB Pharisees try to link passages together to fit their ideology stead of using sound hermeneutics/exegesis on what they're studying. It's one reason I take everything they say with a huge grain of salt. I grew up under that crap, and I have to say that they really built up a dislike in me for the misuse of God's Word.
 
What those who use the story of Absalom's hair do not notice is that, according to 2 Samuel 18:9, Absalom was caught in the tree by his head, not by his long hair. All of us, even those of us with short hair, have heads, and would thus be vulnerable to suffering the same fate as Absalom. (I always get a chuckle from the part about how Absalom's unfaithful mule, no doubt relieved to be free from the heavy burden of Absalom and his big hair, trotted onward and left Absalom in his well-deserved lurch).
 
Last edited:
I'm tempted to spill a lot of type here, but the short first answer on the subject of long hair on men is "don't major on the minors", but my more theologically meaty answer comes via Piper....

Link
 
Gotta love this place. HAC Rebel had a great post about his memories from a very odd time. SO quickly, it devolves down to spewing hatred against standards such as short hair. Can't you start a different thread asking why HAC had their particular preferences? There is certainly no need to hijack a thread about a confusing time period and some of the experiences remembered.
 
Binaca Chugger said:
Gotta love this place. HAC Rebel had a great post about his memories from a very odd time. SO quickly, it devolves down to spewing hatred against standards such as short hair. Can't you start a different thread asking why HAC had their particular preferences? There is certainly no need to hijack a thread about a confusing time period and some of the experiences remembered.
Click to expand...
Hey, it's all relevant when it comes to IFB ideology, dude! Nobody is "spewing hatred." They're just telling the truth....Guess you're just a little overly sensitive little soul who can't handle the truth.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I'm tempted to spill a lot of type here, but the short first answer on the subject of long hair on men is "don't major on the minors", but my more theologically meaty answer comes via Piper....

Link
Click to expand...
Not a fan of Piper, though there is some good stuff that comes through him. I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Still, if these people are correct, who decides what is long and what is short? Opinions are like hiney holes...everyone has one. Everyone has differing standards. We also find that this man is talking more about homosexuality than about hair length. I still believe it's an improper hermeneutic being enforced. This is a question, not a statement.
 
AverageJoe said:
Not a fan of Piper, though there is some good stuff that comes through him. I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Still, if these people are correct, who decides what is long and what is short? Opinions are like hiney holes...everyone has one. Everyone has differing standards. We also find that this man is talking more about homosexuality than about hair length. I still believe it's an improper hermeneutic being enforced. This is a question, not a statement.
Click to expand...
I'm actually not a big fan of Piper either, but that's a different story. 😁 Again, I don't want to spill a bunch of ink here, but I think his analysis resonates with me because it's the same conclusion I came to in regards to the applicability of principles found in Deuteronomy 22:5 long ago. Whereas the fundies made it a hard and fast rule about women in pants, I came to the conclusion that it was about cross-dressing and had something to say about the general roles of men and women. Similarly, I find that's what Piper is saying about the Corinthian passage on Long hair. He's not saying that long hair is a violation in and of itself, but the essence of some aspects of long hair can be attributed to effeminacy and in that regard it blurs the lines between the sexes. That sort of androgyny, while it used to be not so long ago merely speculative, is now a pretty solid cultural norm for our Western society. Again, that doesn't mean that long hair on men means that they are effeminate, I know better than that. But the sense in which Paul was speaking in Corinthians may very well have been in that vein regarding his suggestion about nature and long hair.
 
this might end up being controversial... and i already know many will not agree with me... but one thing to rmember when it comes to paul is that while paul was a jew and a genuinely converted christian being used of God.... he was also a roman... having been steeped in roman culture... ... he also had a few personal "thorns" to deal with.. .... ....when he made comments in his writing such as "i would"... or "i prefer"... paul was giving advice based on his own likes and dislikes...(or prefrences)... and those were based on basic manners and customs he learned from rome... and things that worked for him.... .. not that there was anything wrong with them because all of those were customs that worked well in the roman world and even supported health and orderliness.. ... but he admitted himself in some of his writing that to do the same as he suggested was not a command of God....

but when it came to things that were a command of God - paul was not vague about it.. . he stated directly something was a commandment of God and christians disobyed it at their peril..... i think what too many modern christians have done is take everything that came from paul..no matter what it was... as a hard and fast order that should be followed to the smallest detail....
 
Huk said:
If we’re really going to go back in time for our standards, many men in Europe and colonial America were wearing long haired wigs whenever in public. Then, of course, the great Charles Spurgeon enjoyed both cigars and alcohol (to the dismay of many Christians, even back then.) By the way, although I don’t know him personally, I consider Phil Robertson to be one of the finest Christian men to ever have anything to do with Hollywood, in fact, he lost millions standing up to Hollywood by refusing to compromise over his biblically held beliefs. And…you guessed it, long hair and long beard. As it turns out, Jack Hyles’ own son, Dave, always sported conservative short hair and no beard. I don’t know about y’all, but in this case, I’d trust the old dude with the beard and long hair to watch my daughter over the guy with the IFB “look.” (I have a feeling you would too.) 😉View attachment 3549
Click to expand...
Phil Robertson?!?!?! And that just shows how doctrinally illiterate you are. He is church of Christ Baptismal Regenerist. Com'on man - He is not even saved. Unbelievable.
 
TidesofTruth said:
Phil Robertson?!?!?! And that just shows how doctrinally illiterate you are. He is church of Christ Baptismal Regenerist. Com'on man - He is not even saved. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Saved or not (and who are you to judge someone’s salvation?), I’ll repeat, I’d trust him with my daughter any day over Dave Hyles. My guess is you don’t have a daughter…Lord have mercy if you do.
 
Huk said:
Saved or not (and who are you to judge someone’s salvation?), I’ll repeat, I’d trust him with my daughter any day over Dave Hyles. My guess is you don’t have a daughter…Lord have mercy if you do.
Click to expand...
"I consider Phil Robertson to be one of the finest Christian men" - Huk

And who are you to judge him to be a Christian against the word of God.
And FYI I have written plenty on here about Dave Hyles. I don't have daughters but I have granddaughters and I don't have a habit of trusting any of them with any men. That is not proper to entrust those females in your charge with random men. I did raise 3 sons to purity at the marriage altar so I do know how to take care and discipline of my own to care for the women in their charge.
I knew DH. I knew JER. I even stayed over at her house several times. So Don't even with me.
 
TidesofTruth said:
I don't have daughters
Click to expand...
That became obvious rather quickly.
TidesofTruth said:
I knew DH. I knew JER. I even stayed over at her house several times.
Click to expand...
That, too, became rather obvious quickly. (You’ve got the stench of defending such hypocritical pigs in suit & tie.)

P.S. It was very disingenuous of you to “quote” me in the manner you did. You left out a crucial portion of my quote in an attempt to belittle me. I’d expect such from a person who used to be buddies with the likes of Dave Hyles. Regardless, I’ll now include what you cut off: "I consider Phil Robertson to be one of the finest Christian men to ever have anything to do with Hollywood, in fact, he lost millions standing up to Hollywood by refusing to compromise over his biblically held beliefs.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TidesofTruth said:
"I consider Phil Robertson to be one of the finest Christian men" - Huk

And who are you to judge him to be a Christian against the word of God.
And FYI I have written plenty on here about Dave Hyles. I don't have daughters but I have granddaughters and I don't have a habit of trusting any of them with any men. That is not proper to entrust those females in your charge with random men. I did raise 3 sons to purity at the marriage altar so I do know how to take care and discipline of my own to care for the women in their charge.
I knew DH. I knew JER. I even stayed over at her house several times. So Don't even with me.
Click to expand...
So, like DH...how many women have you sexually assaulted or committed adultery with? Phil Robertson is a Christian. From your own mouth you've earned the nickname "TidesofDuke"
 
sword said:
I try not to judge other choices and convictions, but since you said they were man made rules, was it Hyles or John Rice who wrote: 1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given for a covering.

I try to get my standards from the bible and then my preferences are formed along the way. If they are my preference then they are my choice and I let other make their own choices. I try to make sure my standards are Bible based and in many cases the Bible seems to be very clear.

If you read the sermons from the 1700's and 1800's you will know preaching against things did not start with Hyles. Whether you think they are man made or not preachers have been preaching against things for generations. I remember reading that many preachers used to rail against riding bikes on Sunday in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Click to expand...
Preachers have been preaching against things since the dawn of the first man. I'm sure Adam taught his children what to do and not to do. So, that's nothing new. And since that time there have been man-made rules. So, again...nothing new. I've never implied that these things weren't so. Sword...comprehension, and use of a brain are a good thing. I, too, get my instruction from the Bible, so, I don't intimidate easily when it comes to things like this. In fact, I don't intimidate easily anywhere. I'm not implying you're trying to intimidate anyone. Belittle maybe, but not intimidate. At any rate, my friend, nobody has a specific guide on what is long and what is short by the Bible. It doesn't say it can't touch the collar, ear, or even be over the ear or down the back of the neck! WHAT IS LONG? That conviction will vary from person to person.
 
I think you guys are reading Tides wrong. Tides is not a friend or supporter of DH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top