High profile HAC students

[Norefund]

So, are preachers who are clearly living in the sin of gluttony disqualified from preaching? That's going to rule out a great number of IFB guys.

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

You believe that Sodomy is a sin, based on scripture.
So do I.
So did Lot.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. What about Christians (gay or straight) who have come to a different conclusion?

I think those who believe Sodomy is not a sin are Scripture deniers.
If you mean Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc?
I think they're cults!

I do not believe the Bible directly calls the act of homosexuality in and of itself a sin. I personally believe it to be a form of immorality based on my opinion so I would then have to consider it a sin. There are those who do not personally hold it as a form of immorality (for whatever their reasons) and they also do not believe the Bible is clear on the topic so they are OK with it.

What makes them "Scripture deniers" if they have studied it out for themselves and have come to a different conclusion?

See Dan, your personal belief system means two things to me...Jack and squat! 
Again I repeat, the scriptures, both old and new testament, make it perfectly clear that sodomy is a sin....just like lying, pride, heterosexual fornication and gluttony are called sin.

Only a biased, biblically ignorant, agenda driven, intellectually dishonest person could claim otherwise!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

You believe that Sodomy is a sin, based on scripture.
So do I.
So did Lot.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. What about Christians (gay or straight) who have come to a different conclusion?

I think those who believe Sodomy is not a sin are Scripture deniers.
If you mean Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc?
I think they're cults!

I do not believe the Bible directly calls the act of homosexuality in and of itself a sin. I personally believe it to be a form of immorality based on my opinion so I would then have to consider it a sin. There are those who do not personally hold it as a form of immorality (for whatever their reasons) and they also do not believe the Bible is clear on the topic so they are OK with it.

What makes them "Scripture deniers" if they have studied it out for themselves and have come to a different conclusion?

See Dan, your personal belief system means two things to me...Jack and squat! 
Again I repeat, the scriptures, both old and new testament, make it perfectly clear that sodomy is a sin....just like lying, pride, heterosexual fornication and gluttony are called sin.

Only a biased, biblically ignorant, agenda driven, intellectually dishonest person could claim otherwise!

I'm not talking about my personal belief system. If you agreed with them, I would be mightily !

To you, such Scriptures might be clear but to others, they might not - with no agenda and in all sincerity on their part. It is just the way they view it based on how their hermeneutical processes. And there are those, both straight and gay, that take the exact same Scriptures you would use to defend your position, and according to their hermeneutics, disagree with your position. Perhaps certain positions aren't as clear as one might surmise.

Scripture is absolutely clear, concise and consistent.
At least to anyone not biased, agenda driven and covering their sin.
Jude 7, Romans 1 are pretty clear, among many other verses.
Now, what you believe, how you could twist or contort Jude 7 to mean the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality is laughable...and sad at the same time.

I agree with Tom, I have some sympathy for you, but I'm through with this ludicrous 'the Bible says black but really means white' routine of yours!

You are a good, well meaning guy, I'm sure, but...

Jude talks about "strange flesh". Sodom's sin was forcing strangers, i.e. "strange flesh" into being victimized via gang rape. Romans 1? Well, depends from which "vision from Jesus" the penman conjured, I guess. Wasn't found amid the teachings of the prophets or Jesus, so to say that is from God is a stretch at best. Concerning the "many other verses", none have been brought to the table yet. Leviticus? Male homosexual acts are clearly prohibited among the Israelites but no law against lesbianism, which I guess is OK because the Jewish husband could get it on in a morally-legal, mass orgy at home with both wives and concubines, so that makes sense.

What you are seeing as "black" I do not see as "white" either. I see a whole lot of gray out there that I believed was black (or white) until I took off the lenses of man I was told to see the Bible through. Just because someone doesn't see things through the traditional Protestant lenses doesn't mean they are wrong. Doesn't mean they are necessarily right either. You can say or think what you want about me, but rather than "ripping on homos", I choose to extend graciousness even though I disagree with those that choose to commit the actual sins. I also choose to extend graciousness to those who are born gay because Christians have given them two choices: Jesus or their gay desires.

What if those who believe God isn't opposed to homosexuality are actually right? What if their "spin" on those "gay clobbering" passages is correct? What if you have unknowingly been preaching "Thus saith the Lord" and been totally wrong, though you may have been sincere?

Seems you would like to end the discussion and I am fine with that. You may reply and unless you ask me for a direct response, I will let you have the last word. I sincerely wish you well, my friend.

 

[patriotic]

While I was a student at HAC there were always a few "high profile" students.  The "high profile" status may have come from a position held by the student before or while they were at HAC.  It may have been because of the family from which they came.  It may have been because of the church from which they came.  They just seem to stand out in one way or another.

So, Hacker Nation, who do you remember that would be classified as a "high profile" student?


*One name per post.  Remember, it's all about the numbers!

Anyone remember Ollie Conley?  Red hair.  Friend of Dave Hyles? 

He was from my church.  We called him Dan.  He started using his given name, Ollie,  when he went to HAC.  Quite the story there.  He was one rough character before he got saved.  His mom played the piano in our church and our church prayed for him for a long time.  When he got saved, it was quite the moment!  Shortly afterward he went to HAC.  Because of his awesome story/history, Dave Hyles took him under his wing immediately.  Then he ruined Dan.  Dan was a newer Christian and seeing all the hypocrisy, favoritism, etc. hurt him.  Then he got in trouble with Dave.  Dave got promoted and Dan got expelled.  He never got over it.  Ended up back in the world and died in prison. Another victim of the "system".  Gotta wonder how many stories there are just like that.

His was one of only three signatures I ever had in my Bible.

 

[patriotic]

Oh the stories. Worked for Theron as his Asst pastor right out of college. He was gay then.

My husband and I attended his church on the first Wednesday evening of July in 1987. 

 

[patriotic]

As to the original post......


Mark Crockett

He had a widely known nickname in intramural athletics

Mark the Rocket Crockett! 

I think he a roommate of one of my brothers. 

 

[TidesofTruth]

When the anchor is gone every wind of change is a gale. - me

 

[Smellin Coffee]

When the anchor is gone every wind of change is a gale. - me

And when Jesus is the ship one is aboard, He will conduct His navigation as He chooses, including bringing one into unseemly waters.

 

[deertracks]

Oh the stories. Worked for Theron as his Asst pastor right out of college. He was gay then.

My husband and I attended his church on the first Wednesday evening of July in 1987.

I would have been there.

 

[RAIDER]

What was Brother and Mrs. Colsten's son's name?  Jeff comes to mind.

 

[RAIDER]

As to the original post......


Mark Crockett

He had a widely known nickname in intramural athletics

Mark the Rocket Crockett! 

I think he a roommate of one of my brothers.

Mark was never a "High profile HAC student"  when I was at HAC.  He was a couple of years behind me in school.  He loved playing intramural athletics.  He was a quiet guy overall but did have a touch of a temper if pushed.  We played a lot of pick up basketball together.  I believe he was on security while he was a student.  He was one of the good guys.  Mark wasn't looking around to see who he could turn in.  I know he ended up on staff.

 

[Norefund]

What was Brother and Mrs. Colsten's son's name?  Jeff comes to mind.

Yes, his name is Jeff. He married Cheryl Lewis. Was he a high profile HAC student?

 

[bgwilkinson]

What was Brother and Mrs. Colsten's son's name?  Jeff comes to mind.

Yes, his name is Jeff. He married Cheryl Lewis. Was he a high profile HAC student?

Here you can view both Cheryl and Joy pics and bios. Both are on the board of Out of the Shadows a victim advocacy organization involved with trying to repeal the Indiana Statute of Limitations on rape, with DH in mind.

http://outoftheshadows.today/our-board/


Below are links to interviews with the Ryders.

Jeff and Joy speak for themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmKWCoYURSE&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g22uVn2LN2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvkv-k2tIS0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz_3phND5iE

 

[patriotic]

As to the original post......


Mark Crockett

He had a widely known nickname in intramural athletics

Mark the Rocket Crockett! 

I think he a roommate of one of my brothers.

Mark was never a "High profile HAC student"  when I was at HAC.  He was a couple of years behind me in school.  He loved playing intramural athletics.  He was a quiet guy overall but did have a touch of a temper if pushed.  We played a lot of pick up basketball together.  I believe he was on security while he was a student.  He was one of the good guys.  Mark wasn't looking around to see who he could turn in.  I know he ended up on staff.

But one heard his name quite often and he was always around on security. 

I didn't even imply that he wasn't one of the good guys. 

His wife was my secret sister on our dorm floor my freshman year.  I remember giving her a marker that said, "Marks A Lot".  (Yes, it was corny, but it was also cheap.)

I still have the china that her mom gave me as a bridal shower gift.  My parents moved and started attending church with Brenda's parents during my junior year in college, so while I didn't really know them too well, I appreciate their kindness and generous gift.

 

[subllibrm]

Jude talks about "strange flesh". Sodom's sin was forcing strangers, i.e. "strange flesh" into being victimized via gang rape.

Sounds like an almost plausible theory.

So why did they want the male visitors rather than the virgin daughters? Since for as long as I can remember "the guys" talked about the "conquest" of the virgin. Here Lot offers up multiple virgins and they prefer sex with men! Apparently virgins weren't "strange" enough flesh.

SC your method of pulling thoughts, ideas and definitions from the periphery that led you to your conclusion are not far from the kind of logic Frag uses to get to no pants on wimmin.

 

[RAIDER]

What was Brother and Mrs. Colsten's son's name?  Jeff comes to mind.

Yes, his name is Jeff. He married Cheryl Lewis. Was he a high profile HAC student?

Yes, but just because he was the Colsten's son.

 

[kaba]

What was Brother and Mrs. Colsten's son's name?  Jeff comes to mind.

Yes, his name is Jeff. He married Cheryl Lewis. Was he a high profile HAC student?

Yes, but just because he was the Colsten's son.

The husband sat next to Jeff at college graduation!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Jude talks about "strange flesh". Sodom's sin was forcing strangers, i.e. "strange flesh" into being victimized via gang rape.

Sounds like an almost plausible theory.

So why did they want the male visitors rather than the virgin daughters? Since for as long as I can remember "the guys" talked about the "conquest" of the virgin. Here Lot offers up multiple virgins and they prefer sex with men! Apparently virgins weren't "strange" enough flesh.

SC your method of pulling thoughts, ideas and definitions from the periphery that led you to your conclusion are not far from the kind of logic Frag uses to get to no pants on wimmin.

I am taking my position from all of the OT records by the prophets concerning Sodom. NONE label homosexuality as the primary/sole reason for Sodom's demise. Rather, the prophets mention the way Sodom treated those who were marginalized in their society, the poor, widows, orphans and strangers (immorality was also mentioned). So rather than taking a single story (oh, and the Benjamites performed pretty much identical acts and they were not destroyed because of it), take into account with the Lot story, the other verses involving Sodom and come up with the context.

 

[subllibrm]

Jude talks about "strange flesh". Sodom's sin was forcing strangers, i.e. "strange flesh" into being victimized via gang rape.

Sounds like an almost plausible theory.

So why did they want the male visitors rather than the virgin daughters? Since for as long as I can remember "the guys" talked about the "conquest" of the virgin. Here Lot offers up multiple virgins and they prefer sex with men! Apparently virgins weren't "strange" enough flesh.

SC your method of pulling thoughts, ideas and definitions from the periphery that led you to your conclusion are not far from the kind of logic Frag uses to get to no pants on wimmin.

I am taking my position from all of the OT records by the prophets concerning Sodom. NONE label homosexuality as the primary/sole reason for Sodom's demise. Rather, the prophets mention the way Sodom treated those who were marginalized in their society, the poor, widows, orphans and strangers (immorality was also mentioned). So rather than taking a single story (oh, and the Benjamites performed pretty much identical acts and they were not destroyed because of it), take into account with the Lot story, the other verses involving Sodom and come up with the context.

I was focused on your explanation of "strange flesh". You give the impression that they were only interested in the visitors because they hadn't had sex with them before (strange). In the case of Lot's daughters no one had.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Jude talks about "strange flesh". Sodom's sin was forcing strangers, i.e. "strange flesh" into being victimized via gang rape.

Sounds like an almost plausible theory.

So why did they want the male visitors rather than the virgin daughters? Since for as long as I can remember "the guys" talked about the "conquest" of the virgin. Here Lot offers up multiple virgins and they prefer sex with men! Apparently virgins weren't "strange" enough flesh.

SC your method of pulling thoughts, ideas and definitions from the periphery that led you to your conclusion are not far from the kind of logic Frag uses to get to no pants on wimmin.

I am taking my position from all of the OT records by the prophets concerning Sodom. NONE label homosexuality as the primary/sole reason for Sodom's demise. Rather, the prophets mention the way Sodom treated those who were marginalized in their society, the poor, widows, orphans and strangers (immorality was also mentioned). So rather than taking a single story (oh, and the Benjamites performed pretty much identical acts and they were not destroyed because of it), take into account with the Lot story, the other verses involving Sodom and come up with the context.

I was focused on your explanation of "strange flesh". You give the impression that they were only interested in the visitors because they hadn't had sex with them before (strange). In the case of Lot's daughters no one had.

Perhaps ethnicity played a part. Lot offered his daughters but they wanted to rape him instead, calling him a "sojourner".

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow (Lot) came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door.

This was a matter of dominance and power via rape, not consensual homosexual sex. There was no "great prize" in dominating two daughters (property) of the local sojourner. Had they raped Lot before? Dunno. Had they tried? Dunno. Not in the text. But the fact that their opinion of sojourners/visitors was prejudiced if not downright hateful.