Dealing with FBCH/HAC rumors

[RAIDER]

It always amazes me how differently each of us view rumors from HAC/FBCH.  Some who are anti-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to believe all that is being said.  Some who are pro-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to discredit all that is being said.  Some who did not attend HAC or FBCH have stereotyped the people and institutions and make judgments based on second-hand information.

While we all have our different opinions, I don't believe any of the above three "methods" are correct.  I think the third group are the most dangerous.  They want to boldly proclaim their opinion one way or another without having really experiencing HAC/FBCH first hand.  This does not mean that all their information is incorrect.  This does not mean their opinion is not accurate.  The problem is because they have not attended HAC/FBCH they have trouble having a balanced approach.  Most in this group are either all negative or all positive. 

As we hear audio or see video I believe it is important to be balanced.  We may hear something and say, "Yes, I can see that".  We may hear something and say, "That comment is WAY off".  The "Ray Barker - Worshipping Jack Hyles" audio is a good example.  There are things that were said that we can easily see happening.  There are also things that were said that make us stop and say, "What?"  The Linda Murphrey video is another example.  There were things that she said that we could see happening.  There were other comments that she made that we know are absolutely not true.  Personally I have trouble believing the "middle ground" comments when there are obvious lies mixed in.

It is these types of things that keep the FFF going!  I believe we have all heard and seen things in the past few years that have shocked us.  Some of these have been truth, some have been false.  I hope we can all view things from a realistic "balanced" point rather than an all negative or all positive angle. 

Carry on! 

 

[rsc2a]

It always amazes me how differently each of us view rumors from HAC/FBCH.  Some who are anti-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to believe all that is being said.  Some who are pro-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to discredit all that is being said.  Some who did not attend HAC or FBCH have stereotyped the people and institutions and make judgments based on second-hand information.

While we all have our different opinions, I don't believe any of the above three "methods" are correct.  I think the third group are the most dangerous.  They want to boldly proclaim their opinion one way or another without having really experiencing HAC/FBCH first hand.  This does not mean that all their information is incorrect.  This does not mean their opinion is not accurate.  The problem is because they have not attended HAC/FBCH they have trouble having a balanced approach.  Most in this group are either all negative or all positive. 

Umm...what? You do realize that one of the advantages to third-party intervention is specifically that they do NOT have a preconceived bias, right?

FTR: The options you described are all bad options. The best option would be to assess all the facts as they are presented, determine the plausibility of each fact based on likely bias of the source, and make a determination about the particular subject. The natural result will be a combination of negative and positive; however, the distribution of both negative and positive determinations will not necessarily be equal but will instead depend on the nature of the institution itself.

 

[no value]

I'm trying to follow the rationale here...are you suggesting that a person has to be in the garbage can to access that something stinks?

 

[RAIDER]

It always amazes me how differently each of us view rumors from HAC/FBCH.  Some who are anti-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to believe all that is being said.  Some who are pro-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to discredit all that is being said.  Some who did not attend HAC or FBCH have stereotyped the people and institutions and make judgments based on second-hand information.

While we all have our different opinions, I don't believe any of the above three "methods" are correct.  I think the third group are the most dangerous.  They want to boldly proclaim their opinion one way or another without having really experiencing HAC/FBCH first hand.  This does not mean that all their information is incorrect.  This does not mean their opinion is not accurate.  The problem is because they have not attended HAC/FBCH they have trouble having a balanced approach.  Most in this group are either all negative or all positive. 

Umm...what? You do realize that one of the advantages to third-party intervention is specifically that they do NOT have a preconceived bias, right?

That is a great philosophy if the third party has investigated the situation.  You have not investigated anything.  You are a scorner.  You are a critic.

 

[RAIDER]

I'm trying to follow the rationale here...are you suggesting that a person has to be in the garbage can to access that something stinks?

Absolutely not.  I gave a couple of examples.  Linda Murphrey stated some facts.  She stated some "middle ground" information.  She said some bold faced lies.  You don't have to be in or out of the garbage can to be able to take the truth and throw out the lies.

 

[RAIDER]

It always amazes me how differently each of us view rumors from HAC/FBCH.  Some who are anti-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to believe all that is being said.  Some who are pro-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to discredit all that is being said.  Some who did not attend HAC or FBCH have stereotyped the people and institutions and make judgments based on second-hand information.

While we all have our different opinions, I don't believe any of the above three "methods" are correct.  I think the third group are the most dangerous.  They want to boldly proclaim their opinion one way or another without having really experiencing HAC/FBCH first hand.  This does not mean that all their information is incorrect.  This does not mean their opinion is not accurate.  The problem is because they have not attended HAC/FBCH they have trouble having a balanced approach.  Most in this group are either all negative or all positive. 

FTR: The options you described are all bad options. The best option would be to assess all the facts as they are presented, determine the plausibility of each fact based on likely bias of the source, and make a determination about the particular subject. The natural result will be a combination of negative and positive; however, the distribution of both negative and positive determinations will not necessarily be equal but will instead depend on the nature of the institution itself.

That is exactly what a mean when I say a "balanced approach".

 

[Bravo]

Ha! You could be living right in the middle of it and have a hard time sorting through it all.

 

[RAIDER]

Ha! You could be living right in the middle of it and have a hard time sorting through it all.

You have a great point, my friend!  At least you're not wearing fogged over glasses. 

 

[rsc2a]

It always amazes me how differently each of us view rumors from HAC/FBCH.  Some who are anti-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to believe all that is being said.  Some who are pro-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to discredit all that is being said.  Some who did not attend HAC or FBCH have stereotyped the people and institutions and make judgments based on second-hand information.

While we all have our different opinions, I don't believe any of the above three "methods" are correct.  I think the third group are the most dangerous.  They want to boldly proclaim their opinion one way or another without having really experiencing HAC/FBCH first hand.  This does not mean that all their information is incorrect.  This does not mean their opinion is not accurate.  The problem is because they have not attended HAC/FBCH they have trouble having a balanced approach.  Most in this group are either all negative or all positive. 

Umm...what? You do realize that one of the advantages to third-party intervention is specifically that they do NOT have a preconceived bias, right?

That is a great philosophy if the third party has investigated the situation.  You have not investigated anything.  You are a scorner.  You are a critic.

Absolutely I'm a critic. I hear supporters of HAC talking about blatant heresy being preached. I hear those supporters celebrating the worship of man. I hear those same supporters discussing how important appearances are above all things. (Numbers, people! Numbers!) I hear the supporters laugh at the expense of others, joke about gluttony, and wink knowingly at pride.

I don't have to investigate. These actions are openly celebrated. These actions are used as the definition of what makes a HACer a HACer. Might as well say I haven't closely investigated the ideology at the local Pride parade. In both cases, the ideology is obvious;

And when those who have bought into the system are forced to acknowledge it...they label others as scorners.

 

[RAIDER]

Absolutely I'm a critic. I hear supporters of HAC talking about blatant heresy being preached. I hear those supporters celebrating the worship of man. I hear those same supporters discussing how important appearances are above all things. (Numbers, people! Numbers!) I hear the supporters laugh at the expense of others, joke about gluttony, and wink knowingly at pride.

I don't have to investigate. These actions are openly celebrated. These actions are used as the definition of what makes a HACer a HACer. Might as well say I haven't closely investigated the ideology at the local Pride parade. In both cases, the ideology is obvious;

And when those who have bought into the system are forced to acknowledge it...they label others as scorners.

You are tossing everyone into the same boat.  Have you heard anyone talk about coming to Christ through the ministries of FBCH?  Yes, you have.  Have you heard about anyone graduating from HAC and serving God faithfully at a church or on the mission field?  Yes, you have.  Have you heard about any bus kids from Chicago coming to Christ and living for him today because of the bus ministry of FBCH?  Yes, you have,  Have you heard about FBCH helping anyone in need?  Yes, you have.

You NEVER mention any of these.  You take the negative information that you have heard (whether it is accurate or not) and continue to talk down about everything and everyone that has ever been associated with HAC or FBCH. 

Yes, you are a scorner.  Yes, you are a critic.  Yes, I am laughing at your expense right now!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=RAIDER]You are tossing everyone into the same boat.  Have you heard anyone talk about coming to Christ through the ministries of FBCH?  Yes, you have.  Have you heard about anyone graduating from HAC and serving God faithfully at a church or on the mission field?  Yes, you have.  Have you heard about any bus kids from Chicago coming to Christ and living for him today because of the bus ministry of FBCH?  Yes, you have,  Have you heard about FBCH helping anyone in need?  Yes, you have.

You NEVER mention any of these.  You take the negative information that you have heard (whether it is accurate or not) and continue to talk down about everything and everyone that has ever been associated with HAC or FBCH.  [/quote]

And those are all well and good and should be heralded...

...so why do you spend so much time and effort celebrating the negatives and ignoring the positives?

 

[RAIDER]

[quote author=RAIDER]You are tossing everyone into the same boat.  Have you heard anyone talk about coming to Christ through the ministries of FBCH?  Yes, you have.  Have you heard about anyone graduating from HAC and serving God faithfully at a church or on the mission field?  Yes, you have.  Have you heard about any bus kids from Chicago coming to Christ and living for him today because of the bus ministry of FBCH?  Yes, you have,  Have you heard about FBCH helping anyone in need?  Yes, you have.

You NEVER mention any of these.  You take the negative information that you have heard (whether it is accurate or not) and continue to talk down about everything and everyone that has ever been associated with HAC or FBCH. 

And those are all well and good and should be heralded...

...so why do you spend so much time and effort celebrating the negatives and ignoring the positives?
[/quote]

Say what?????

 

[rsc2a]

"I knew a guy at HAC. He would go up to gals we thought were ugly and belittle them. It was hilarious!"

 

[RAIDER]

"I knew a guy at HAC. He would go up to gals we thought were ugly and belittle them. It was hilarious!"

Did you see this or personally know someone who saw this, or are you taking someone's post and adding to it?

 

[rsc2a]

"I knew a guy at HAC. He would go up to gals we thought were ugly and belittle them. It was hilarious!"

Did you see this or personally know someone who saw this, or are you taking someone's post and adding to it?

Pat McCloskey's younger brother, Joey, attended HAC for a year.  He was one of the funniest guys I have ever met.  His comedy was a Jerry Lewis type.  One night we were sitting around in the lobby and a homely looking girl (it may have been Teri ) was sitting across the room.  Joey says, "Do you dare me to go over and act like I'm going to ask her out?"  Of course, my encouragement immediately started.

Joey slowly walks over and does a perfect act of a shy guy trying to muster up the courage to ask a gal for a date.  He had the full red face and the shy giggle.  He was like an artist. - RAIDER

 

[RAIDER]

"I knew a guy at HAC. He would go up to gals we thought were ugly and belittle them. It was hilarious!"

Did you see this or personally know someone who saw this, or are you taking someone's post and adding to it?

Pat McCloskey's younger brother, Joey, attended HAC for a year.  He was one of the funniest guys I have ever met.  His comedy was a Jerry Lewis type.  One night we were sitting around in the lobby and a homely looking girl (it may have been Teri ) was sitting across the room.  Joey says, "Do you dare me to go over and act like I'm going to ask her out?"  Of course, my encouragement immediately started.

Joey slowly walks over and does a perfect act of a shy guy trying to muster up the courage to ask a gal for a date.  He had the full red face and the shy giggle.  He was like an artist. - RAIDER

I knew what you were referring to.    First of all it was never said that the girl was ugly.  You fabricated that.  it was said that she was "homely".  Secondly, you said he would go up to "gals (plural) and belittle them".  No one ever said that this was more than a one time thing.  Again, you twist the story.  Also, you forgot to mention that he married the gal and they are still happily married today.  Did you forget that part?

This was a great exercise for you to see how you look for negativity and twist and manipulate the story to create what you want.  Nicely done, scorner!

 

[rsc2a]

First of all it was never said that the girl was ugly.  You fabricated that.  it was said that she was "homely".

home·ly
ˈhōmlē/
adjective
adjective: homely; comparative adjective: homelier; superlative adjective: homeliest

    1.
    North American
    (of a person) unattractive in appearance.
    synonyms: unattractive, plain, unprepossessing, unlovely, ill-favored, ugly; informalnot much to look at
    "she's rather homely"

Secondly, you said he would go up to "gals (plural) and belittle them".  No one ever said that this was more than a one time thing.

Well, excuse me...

Also, you forgot to mention that he married the gal and they are still happily married today.  Did you forget that part?

No...I didn't forget that part. It's completely irrelevant. The fact that you thought it would be funny to belittle a girl you thought was unattractive is the point. Little Johnny might have started an animal shelter but it doesn't change the fact that he used to throw puppies in front of moving cars. And if, years later, he still giggles when he thinks about his past actions, there is still a problem.

Although if you want to bring that point up, when you were telling your "hilarious" story, you didn't even mention this fact until you got called out for deplorable, Christ-less behavior. Apparently it didn't matter when you first decided to share how "hilarious" it was.

But then..."Some who are pro-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to discredit all that is being said."

 

[IFB X-Files]

But then..."Some who are pro-Hyles/FBCH/HAC seem to create scenarios in order to discredit all that is being said."

The "how-to's" were covered in Church Ed.

 

[RAIDER]

First of all it was never said that the girl was ugly.  You fabricated that.  it was said that she was "homely".

home·ly
ˈhōmlē/
adjective
adjective: homely; comparative adjective: homelier; superlative adjective: homeliest

    1.
    North American
    (of a person) unattractive in appearance.
    synonyms: unattractive, plain, unprepossessing, unlovely, ill-favored, ugly; informalnot much to look at
    "she's rather homely"

This girl was absolutely beautiful, but yet homely.  Do you feel better?

 

[RAIDER]

Secondly, you said he would go up to "gals (plural) and belittle them".  No one ever said that this was more than a one time thing.

Well, excuse me...

You are excused.