Holy Magic Hair “the Power of Angels”

It looks like sharing biblical blogs are going against big-techs Standards so I am reposting some of my old blog posts here on wordpress to see if they are shareable. Censorship2020

9/4/20 Update Reposting: RE: You can’t share this link natzrim. blogspot. com Your post couldn’t be shared, because this link goes against our Community Standards

Holy Hair (Holy Magic Hair Doctrine) sound problems? use a 3.5mm mini audio plug or ear buds.


“A woman’s long hair symbolizes that she submits to God’s plan and to the family leadership of her husband. It is her glory. It is a sign to the angels of her commitment to God and her power with God. It is a covering so that she can pray and prophesy publicly without being ashamed. Similarly, a man’s short hair symbolizes that he submits to God’s plan and accepts the family leadership position. For both married and unmarried, this symbol indicates obedience to God’s will.”~ David K. Bernard’s symposium paper regarding hair doctrine 


 Note: Christian churches are filled with passionate men and women of all ages who love God with all their being, and have a deeply genuine love for other people. Many “Bible believing Christians” believe many unbiblical heresies. The wide acceptance of the beliefs within Christendom does not make it biblical

“Well, again historically speaking, if you study Judaism you will find that it is part of their belief that a man fails his wife if he does not provide her with jewelry and cosmetics to make herself look attractive for her husband.” 

Question: Hair Length and Religion  (Pagans View)
A reader asks, “I recently explored the option of joining a local Wiccan coven, and was floored when the High Priestess told me that if I became part of her group, I’d have to let my hair grow long. Because of my job, I have to keep my hair fairly short – it’s a safety issue – but she said that it was a tenet of “our religion” to let our hair grow long. She went on to tell me it was a way that Wiccans pay tribute to the goddess and embrace the sacred feminine. Is this true? Will I never be able to join a coven unless I grow my hair long? Help!

Answer:…”The notion of hair as tied to religious belief is actually a pretty complex one. In some belief systems, hair is associated with magical power. Why is this? Well, it may be purely psychological. Take, for instance, a woman with long hair who wears it up in a neat bun, pulled back from her face, while she is at work. Her hair is kept tidily out of her way while she does her job, tends to her family, and so forth. And yet once this woman steps into a magical setting, she removes the pins and combs, setting her hair free – it’s a liberating feeling, to literally let your hair down. It brings a primitive sense of wildness and raw sexuality to the moment, and that in itself can be very powerful indeed.”  From: Does hair length impact our religious practice?

Holy Magic Hair – UPCI Stamp of Approval

Holy Magic Hair
As an introduction, we encourage you to listen to the following videos of a June 29, 2008 sermon by an evangelist named, Lee Stoneking, who teaches this doctrine.

(Update June 22nd 2013 see video above if this one is deleted)

Power of angels?
God compelled to pour out his gift of the Holy Spirit because of uncut hair?  
Receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost through the laying of hair?
A distinct anointing?
No results in prayer?  Losing authority in prayer?
The devil knows we carry the glory of God in our hair?
A woman can gain power with God by having her hair grow long?
This picture was taken at the Alabama’s Ladies retreat. Sis Patty Twyman took down her hair to summon the power of the angels over the prayer requests. Many prayers were answered.
One of the endearing points of HMH advocates is that the idea that there is power in uncut hair can be verified in the wicca religion where the witches believe there is power in uncut hair.
Such proof can be seen in the message that is pro-HMH  that I posted under the HMH post….
Another HMH advocate posted in her blog:
Did you know that witches won’t cut their hair because they try to tap into the power promised to us in 1Cor 11? Do you know why Indians used to scalp their enemies? Do you know why Nuns and Buddhist monks shave their hair? What does tar and feathering mean? Do you know who it was that first starting the hair cutting trend? What date was that? What about the hippie movement?
What significance is there when hair is found at the scene of a crime?
Daniel Alicea, the man who operates holymagichair.com, found in his research that…
“Most wiccan witches agree that there is no added or extra power in uncut hair while recognizing it is used in ritual magic…but so is eye newt, toe of frog…wool of bat and tongue of dog.”
He even quotes one wiccan saying “Hair does not give you extra power and you don’t lose power if it’s cut.”
Keeping in mind, believers on both sides are united against this magic hair heresy.
Some prevailing doctrines in certain circles that I believe have led to the extreme, present-day HMH doctrine can be traced to the teachings of men like  of S.G. Norris and Murray Burr.
As early as the PAJC days in 1945, S.G. Norris, former president of Apostolic Bible Institute, General Presbyter and author, proposed elements now found in modern-day HMH doctrine.
On pages 3 and 12 of The Pentecostal Outlook, Volume 14, Number 9, September 1945,  S.G Norris suggests that uncut hair results in a “special blessing” and power with God because of the angels.  He also proposes that women have always been the leaders in prayer and power with God.
Here are a couple of  the quotes from SG Norris’ Back to Holiness article :
Then Paul tells why a woman can either gain power with God by having her hair grow long or why she loses power with God if she cuts or bobs it (Verse 7 of  this same chapter 1 Corinth. 11)  (pg.3)
But, you women say,why should I leave my hair grow when most all other women are having theirs cut? My answer to you is a wonderful promise of God found in this same chapter we are considering today. First Corinthians chapter 11 and verse 10. Don’t forget that God never asked any of us to pay a price of holiness without offering some grand reward for our obedience, Listen …
“For this cause, or because of this allowing your hair to grow and using your hair as your covering when praying or worshipping at the house of God, then for this cause ought the woman to have power because of the angels.
” Now maybe you never just considered this verse before, but God has angels on this earth not visible to the naked eye, but present just the same, around and near those who far the Lord … the angels encamp around them that fear Him.
So there is a special blessing –a grand reward of power with God and the presence of holy angels around about a godly woman that does NOT cut her hair.
Here is a promise that I wish every woman listening in today would remember. First of all Christ needs you! … the womanhood of any generation that knew God have always been the leaders in prayer and power with God … So women, here is a promise to every godly woman, that you will have power with God because of the presence of angels, providing you use your hair for a covering and not cut it or bob it off.
Burr, in a October 1954 Pentecostal Herald article entitled “The Hair Question” asserts the following views:
1. Cutting hair is a salvational matter.
“This a matter of life or of death, eternal salvation or eternal condemnation”.
2. Short hair affects spirituality.
“Mark these words, you will never find a really spiritual woman with short hair”
3. Cutting affects God’s favor over one’s life
” It is a shame for a woman to pray with short hair. You may not need God now; but one day you will need him more than anything else in this world. Perhaps in sickness, your baby, your husband, yourself. In death, in distress, how will you be able to kneel before him in sincerity with your short hair, a very banner of rebellion, mocking Him even as you try to lay hold of him in prayer’

David K. Bernard, the recently elected General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International, has seemingly put his stamp of approval on the increasingly popular practice of laying hair among Apostolic circles,  in  a recent 2009 UGST symposium paper.

Bernard’s symposium paper regarding hair doctrine is available for download here:
While condemning the practice under certain conditions, the following quote is being termed as a “free pass” legitimizing HMH doctrine :
There have been reports of women letting down their long hair as part of making a specific, urgent prayer request. If the idea was to obligate God to answer prayer or to create a new method of praying, then this action was misguided. If instead it was a spontaneous act to confirm their consecration, then it could have been a legitimate means of expressing and focusing faith.
Oneness theologian,  Daniel Segraves,  responded to Bernard’s paper with his own.  It can be found here:
Segraves, who wrote what is deemed as the first official response by a UPCI theologian denouncing this dangerous heresy in an November 2009, Pentecostal Herald, is adamant in his disapproval of this liturgical or prayer practice.
In  Segrave’s 2009 UGST symposium paper, in response to Bernard and those who have taken license to teach this heresy, he writes :
I Corinthians 11:10 is interpreted by some to mean that if women have long hair it gives them some kind of power or authority in the spiritual realm. It has even been suggested that women should let down their long hair, laying it on the altar, on another person, or shaking it in the wind in order to evoke this power. Support for this view is found in anecdotal evidence and reference works related to witchcraft and occultism. To interpret Scripture by anecdotal evidence is dangerous; our final authority is Scripture, not experience. To interpret Scripture by reference to witchcraft and occultism is even more dangerous. Scripture warns us to avoid the influence of these ideas; we are to be simple concerning evil and wise concerning what is good. (See Romans 16:19.)
Concerning the meaning of I Corinthians 11:10, we can say with certainty that it says nothing about evil spirits, it says nothing about how a woman’s hair is arranged, and the word “hair” does not appear in the verse. I will forego further discussion here in view of the fact that my article “Another Look at I Corinthians 11:10: A Plea for Caution” appeared in the November 2009 issue of the Pentecostal Herald just before this symposium. The article addresses this subject in detail, and I commend it to those who are interested in this text and/or concerned about this novel interpretation.
In response to the idea that there is a “magic formula in prayer that enables us to obtain whatever we want when we want it,” David Bernard writes,
Some women have let down their hair as part of making a specific, urgent prayer request. If the idea is to obligate God to answer prayer, then this action is misguided. If the purpose is to confirm their consecration, then it could be a legitimate means of expressing and focusing faith. We can draw an analogy to the positioning of the sick so that Peter’s shadow would fall on them . . . and the use of handkerchiefs to pray for the sick . . . . Such practices were not mandatory and probably not even typical, but they were legitimate expressions of faith in the apostolic church.
I completely agree that we cannot obligate God to answer prayer and that there is no “magic formula” enabling us to obtain whatever we want when we want it. I can also appreciate the desire to acknowledge the genuineness of any act of faith, no matter how bizarre it may seem or whether or not there is any biblical warrant for it. But my concern is that the teaching that is currently circulating among us does not see the letting down of a woman’s long has as a simple confirmation of consecration. Rather, it is being presented as a technique guaranteeing all kinds of miraculous results from the salvation of lost loved ones to the healing of diseases to the protection of children from any harmful effects of immunization to the ability to win back lost romantic affections. This is in addition to the idea of power over evil spirits. It seems there is no end to this; in one meeting the speaker suggested that God only knows what would happen if all of the Pentecostal women in the world would let down their hair and allow it to blow in the wind.
As my wife and I discussed this teaching, she reminded me of an episode in our life when our daughter was very young and contracted some kind of respiratory ailment. As we rushed to the hospital with our daughter gasping for breath (and with the brakes of our car going out on the way), my wife screamed at God, “You’ve got to heal our daughter! We’ve always paid our tithes!”
We have biblical precedent for the use of prayer cloths, even though we probably don’t use them in the same way that the handkerchiefs and aprons taken from Paul’s body were used. We even have biblical precedent for the possibility that someone could be healed as the shadow of a person of faith passes over them. We have no biblical precedent for a woman letting down her hair as a confirmation of consecration or to express and focus her faith. I do believe that there are such things as “special miracles” (Acts 19:11), and I don’t think the biblical record exhausts the ways miracles may occur. If it were not for the current abuse of I Corinthians 11:10, I might agree to the legitimacy of a woman letting down her hair to confirm her consecration, although God certainly knows of her consecration no matter how her hair is arranged.
But the current climate on this issue is so troubling, so divisive, and so potentially harmful that I do not wish to suggest any degree of legitimacy to a practice that is based on misinterpreting a text, that draws on the claims of the occult, and that promises the ability to control outcomes. Instead, I would rather point people to simple faith in God that requires no props and that avoids any appeal to non-biblical sources for insight. I am concerned that some women, thinking they have found new depth of meaning in Scripture, will be tempted to look further into the realm of the occult for new insights on spirituality.
This has drawn the attention, criticism and ire of those who believe this free pass may threaten Bernard’s vision of  a return to “Apostolic Identity”.

Is it worth losing the Power of Angels?
“You cannot AFFORD to cut your hair. Is it worth losing the power of angels? Is it worth losing authority in prayer? Is it worth losing your identity as an apostolic woman? We are known for uncut hair because it is what the bible teaches. My sister in love Courtney told me a story about a lady in her church,A blogger, by the name of Kendra, has joined the ranks of deceived believers who have fallen prey to a heretical doctrine that attributes power of angels and anointing to one act of obedience … in a plea initially addressed to herself, she states extra-biblical reasons taught by several in recent years, for why she NOT should commit this act.  In the following post she also shares a “miracle” in which God is compelled to pour out His Spirit through the reminder of personal consecration and the laying of hair:

Her son was trying so hard Sunday after Sunday to get the Holy Ghost. For some reason he could not pray through. Finally one Sunday she took her hair and laid it on her son. She began to remind God of the power that she had because her hair was uncut, and you know what happened almost instantly? Her son received the Holy Ghost!!!

Does God come on the scene immediately for you? Whenever you want him to? Just let down your hair?
I know personally of apostolic women who gave in and cut their hair. As a result, they were miserable, depressed and regreted ever going it. You undergo a major spiritual catastrophe by cutting your hair. You will not receive the same results in prayer. You will not have the same anointing you once possessed. Uncut hair is serious business. OH GOD give us revelation and understanding!
Sister, DO NOT cut your hair, I repeat PLEASE don’t do it! [sic]
Consider this: why is it that when a woman backslides, the first thing she does is cut her hair?? The devil knows that we carry the glory of God upon our uncut hair. The devil knows that there is POWER in our hair. We have a distinct anointing when we have uncut hair. I remember the first time I walked into a Pentecostal church where the ladies had uncut hair, you could FEEL the difference in anointing on the women! There was something about them that was so beautiful, holy and radiant. They almost looked like angels to me (that is no exaggeration). ”
Power of angels?
God compelled to pour out his gift of the Holy Spirit because of uncut hair?  
Receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost through the laying of hair?
A distinct anointing?
No results in prayer?  Losing authority in prayer?
The devil knows we carry the glory of God in our hair?
They almost looked like angels?
The post encapsulates what effect the teachings of men, like Lee Stoneking, are having on some within the Oneness Apostolic movement.  A woman by name of Harvelia testifies on Kendra’s site that it was Stoneking’s influenced her towards similar views:
“Just recently I attended a conference where Bro. Lee Stoneking was speaking. His message was coming from 1 Cor. 11:5 and he was speaking about how the woman’s uncut hair being their glory – I was not raised in Pentecost/Apostolic; however, about three years ago the Lord led me to leave my former church which was is a prodominately [sic][ black apostolic church which I was a part of for over fifteen years. I had never receive such teaching – and it just left me wondering why the black apostolic churches are not teaching this. I had to call my sister because she’s been apostolic/pentecost longer than I have – but she’s never receive the teaching. I currently wear my hair naturally and have done so off and on for years. I felt bad when Bro. Stoneking was teaching because I recall cutting my hair – but this was never taught in my former church.Then it also leaving me wondering why it is not being taught in the african/black churches?   ” (http://kendrathaler-hair.blogspot.com/p/hair-testimonies.html)
Error begets error.  The pat answer given by some who tell the Body of Christ that these forms of consecrations and personal convictions are not salvific … may need to reexamine what is really being taught in their ranks. [sic]

Excerpt from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards’  by Ricky Guthrie
UPCI teaches that it is sin for a woman to cut their hair, trim it or in any way break it. They take this teaching from the 11th chapter of I Corinthians.
If we look at this scripture we find that at the beginning of this chapter the Apostle Paul was dealing with a literal hair covering or veil. Later on in the chapter he mentions that long hair on a woman is considered part of her covering and that there is power in that long hair. Yet, if we look at this scripture we cannot find anywhere that Paul declared how long a woman’s hair was to be.
We know historically that in Corinth the temple prostitutes wore their hair as short as the men did. Some even shaved their heads, which some of the Jewish tribes considered shameful. This is why Paul kept speaking of if a woman did not wear a head covering then she should have her head shaved. He did declare that it was shameful for a woman to have all of her hair cut off, but no where did he say she could not cut her hair. Matter of fact, it declares that a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign of authority because of the angels.
UPCI says this covering on her head is her hair and yes, Paul said long hair was given to her as a covering, but it would not make sense that this whole chapter is dedicated to long hair because he said if she refused to wear a head covering then let her shave her head. [Also See Article The Issue Of Head Covering ]
Long hair on a woman has always been dictated by society. We don’t know what length a woman’s hair was in those days. Also let us look at something else.
It is obvious that in Paul’s day it was considered shameful for a woman to shave her head but that had not always been in Israel. We read in the law that God told Moses that if they conquered a country and captured women and a Israelite man found one of the women attractive and wanted to marry her that she was to shave her head and pare her nails. (Deuteronomy 21:12.)
Also in studying Jewish history, we find where in some of the tribes it was a custom that when a woman became betrothed to her fiance she would shave her hair and wear a wig until the day her hair grew out after she was married. The reasoning for this was that hair was considered part of what attracted men to women and these women did not want to be attractive to any man than her husband to be. If any other man tried to seduce her, she would remove her wig and show him her shaved head which repulsed him and let him know she was betrothed.
If a woman cutting her hair was sinful, why did God allow these heathen women to shave their heads before marrying an Israelite husband?
It is not the cutting of the hair that is sinful. It is when men and women want to emulate one another and look like one another until you cannot distinguish man from woman. God hates unisex.
If we study the lifestyles of the people during the life of Paul and the Apostles, we find that the prostitutes of the temple cut their hair as short as the Greek and Roman men but the male temple prostitutes wore their hair long. It is obvious that Paul, in dealing with the Christians in Corinth, was using his surroundings for his message. If what he said was fully true about men, then his own people would be sinning for the men never trimmed the sides of their hair and wore it long, as under the law.
We must understand that God wants men and women to be separate in appearance. Women not to cut their hair so short they look like men and men not to wear their hair so long they look like women. 

 Double Standards and Eisegesis’ By Stephen Mann

The doctrine of uncut hair is thought of by many in the United Pentecostal Church International as being ‘revealed’ to them by God and is seen as one of the pillars for identifying people as the ‘true Apostolics’ or ‘Pentecostals’. In following this teaching many extra-Biblical rules and guidelines have been developed which are as complex as any of the many ‘hand-washing’ ordinances invented by zealous Jewish believers of Christ’s day. These modern extra-Biblical rules regarding 1 Corinthians 11 I will address in depth.
This teaching, followed to an extreme, results in a heavy burden of guilt to ladies under it especially since some even teach that a lady not ever trimming or cutting her hair prevents evil, deception and rebellion from entering her home or father and mother’s home and so if adultery and sin enters a home some will blame the lady for cutting her hair. It can also be used as the reason any tragedy, sickness or calamity has come on individuals.

The reality is that this so-called ‘exegesis’ (bringing out the meaning) of 1 Corinthians 11, as meaning ‘no cutting’, is really ‘eisegesis’ (reading a meaning into the text). The ‘no cutting’ doctrine just isn’t there. That’s why, instead of studying, many are merely encouraged to pray for a revelation of this teaching and stay within the organizational ‘fences’. This illustrates what happens (mostly through ignorance) once one starts departing from and adding to the Scriptures even in what may be considered good ways. [See Section Reading and Understanding Your Bible ]
Over a period of several years as a licensed minister with the UPC, I looked more deeply at the no trimming teaching comparing it with the Bible passage. It became more and more obvious to me that the UPC teaching was very complex in its ‘interpretation’ of what is cultural (not for us today) and what is universal (for all people everywhere) in that passage. It wasn’t until after I was led by God to leave however, that I was able to clearly see how ‘no cutting’ ignores the real teaching of the passage (Paul teaching wearing a physical veil, saying that if the woman isn’t covered she may as well shear her hair, and comparing long hair on men and long hair on women to encourage veiling). This is more than likely because while in the UPC it is very difficult to look without bias at the passage and just be open to what the Bible teaches. It is so clear now to me that anything beyond the Bible’s clear commands, by implication, must be omitted by God for a reason. If He wanted to make uncut hair important (as He did with many other issues) He would have made it clear in the Bible. I personally have no problem with any lady choosing freely to not cut her hair or any organization making it their distinctive but I believe it is Pharisaical and legalistic to put the traditions and desires of men on the same level of authority as the teaching and Word of God.

This non-Biblical teaching of ‘no cutting’ has developed a lot more than splitting hairs (pardon the pun) and has led to more and more complex rules and double standards to try to cover up the glaring omission of ‘no cutting’ from the text (basically teaching it is hidden inside the passage). Here are some of the double standards that I now see in their view of 1Corinthians 11 that I ignored for years thinking there was some other explanation for them:
If the word ‘long’ in 1 Corinthians 11 really means hair without any cutting at all (to let grow),
It follows that…
If a woman has hair to her waist but trims her ends, her head is uncovered and her hair is not long. BUT if a man has hair to his waist but trims his ends his hair is long!
Many teachers of this doctrine would consider men like the men in Megadeath, or even the Beatles, as having long hair, and if converted to their church, would teach them from the same passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that they should cut their hair ‘short’ (measured to above the collar) out of the same verse saying it’s a shame to have long hair. (I wonder how it is that Samson’s long hair pleased God?)
In other words, for these teachers, trimmed is not long enough for women but it’s too long for men. This is clearly a double standard.

The two different meanings and applications are taught from the one same word in the Bible, and in context clearly refer to the one thing…long hair. If this were another Greek word such as is used for baptism (baptiso) the same teachers would be acting very differently. Such teachers, on topics such as baptism, often make it very clear that to them there is only one way to translate, interpret and apply Scripture (literally) yet here they overlook the omission of clear apostolic teaching on the matter and overlook historical Biblical practice. They have a double standard and so must take the word in both a literal and a non-literal double meaning.
If the same Greek word ‘komao’ (only used in these two verses of the whole Greek New Testament) can be translated into two vastly different meanings (as hair ‘let grow-ness’ for women and in the same passage as hair ‘shortness’ for men) without anything in the passage to justify or confirm it, then it’s little wonder that ‘no braids’ is interpreted to not really mean no braids but ‘no jewelry’ in the same Bible passage is interpreted to really mean no jewelry! (1 Timothy 2:9-19; 1 Peter 3:3)
It’s also little wonder that when the Bible clearly says we are saved ‘not by works of righteousness’ this kind of adding to the Bible is used to say that it really doesn’t mean ‘not by works’…in their Bible eisegesis it is explained to mean not JUST by works, because if you don’t have works then you will be lost.
What’s even more amazing to me is the teaching not only implies Biblical good works are salvational, but also that extra-Biblical works such as not trimming dead ends, not wearing pants, and not wearing jewelry at all, are ‘good works’ and without which show one doesn’t have faith (unless one is a new believer -then it’s mysteriously overlooked)! This sounds like the Pharisees with their extra rules and exemptions for washing hands, Sabbath prohibitions and ‘separation’ from sinners and Samaritans!
With this complexity and confusion (continually reinforced by three to four services per week, books, cassettes, videos and conferences), these kind of teachers keep souls from grasping the simplicity that is really in Jesus: Salvation is a gift and not a result of our keeping standards (even Biblical ones which we are, by the way, encouraged to keep and which we will grow to do as a result of being saved and filled with God and not the means by which to be saved or earn more of God).
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were double standards experts and had filled books with complex rules, commentary, etc. on what was allowed and what wasn’t, what the passage really means and what it doesn’t.

These modern teachers explain the word ‘long’ in 1 Corinthians 11 to mean that any woman who ever trims her hair even once by definition doesn’t have long hair since it is not ‘let to grow’ and she has an uncovered head. This is absolutely and clearly what the word ‘long’ in the Bible means to them.
These absolutes are further ‘explained’ to mean that ladies and girls can never trim dead ends since that is not letting the hair grow as ‘taught in the Bible’.
Yet the interesting double take and complexity fog index is applied when these teachers supersede their previous absolute interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and allow cut hair to be considered ‘long’ (since the majority of women today have cut their hair) and mysteriously recognise what was once an uncovered head as having been transformed mystically through their faith somehow into a covered head (where there is no Scripture indicating any thing of that nature or any loop-holes in the previous absolutes).
They do this through many complex maneuvers where the Bible passages supposedly clear teaching of ‘long’ as always meaning ‘to let their hair grow’ is superseded in certain circumstances.
(In other words they turn a blind eye to this absolute ‘no cutting’ rule sometimes.)

Dispensation for a woman NOT having ‘long’ cut hair (or an uncovered covered head) is granted only in the following MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
• a) hair cutting before conversion
• b) hair cutting in preparation for surgery
• c) hair cutting in an emergency rescue or life threatening situation
• d) hair cutting if another attacked the person and perpetrated it
• e) hair cutting if you were backslidden but have since repented (although one cannot cut and repent too often or too frequently or when one’s hair is too tangled since that is an unforgivable sin)
• f) having an uncovered head if you were accused of adultery in the Old Covenant (Numbers 5:18)
• g) hair shaving if you were a captured enemy female about to marry an Israelite (God commanded it in Deuteronomy 21:12)
• h) hair cutting, shaving and plucking if it’s hair that’s on your legs, eyebrows or under your arms
• i) if you were a female and took the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:18)
So in summary; to the double standard teachers, ‘long’ means ‘to let grow’, EXCEPT if one is unconverted, backslidden, sick, attacked, in the OLD TESTAMENT as a captive wife-to-be or in mortal danger and can only be saved by cutting the hair.
Only in these certain cases is the non-‘long’ cut hair ‘long’.

However ‘long’ can NOT be interpreted to mean it’s allowable to trim it from an inability to care for it (example: disability etc.), or when elderly and unable to maintain it, or to ever make the hair healthy and get rid of split ends since that is clearly not in the Bible and the Church has clearly ruled that it is sinful, rebellious, worldly and virtually unforgivable.

The church leaders take on an authority to rule in their member’s lives beyond that which the Bible gives them. The hair cuttee ONLY receives the ‘imprimatur’ by the Church in said circumstances which have been ruled on. Mysteriously in those circumstances the non-‘long’ hair is transubstantiated into ‘long’ hair and the head deemed ‘covered’ by the powers-that-be.
To the modern (double) standards teachers, such cases mysteriously don’t mean the Church has equal authority with the Bible or that they apply the Bible one way for one person/situation/time and another way for another person/situation/time. In their view they are simply ‘rightly dividing the Word’.
In fact many teachers teach both contrary teachings of ‘long’ and think that both contradicting positions are taught at the same time in the same passage without ever seeing the contradiction. The Organisation brainwashes members to think that it’s the other teachers (who to some are not even considered Christian) that are soft and have itching ears and don’t understand the truth that the UPC has (known as ‘the revelation’). These Organisational leaders, as kinds of vicars for Christ on earth, have an infallibility and unquestionable authority equal with Scripture and alone can interpret such mysterious contradictions of literal and non-literal interpretations of the same passage.
Saying people need to believe it while it seems contradictory and arbitrary, solely because the church leaders say it is Biblical and is not contradictory, reminds me of the White Queen saying to Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland — “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things
 before breakfast.”
8. THE SIN OF PRIDE Many tend to think, like I did, that since they are (supposedly) the only ones who really understand, teach and obey God’s revelation in the Bible, that they must therefore be spiritually superior to other Christians who don’t understand or obey it, or even the only ‘true Christians’. Although humility is emphasized, many proudly believe that because ‘their ladies’ are more ‘feminine’ and more ‘modest’, that it is proof very few outside of the denomination will be saved and also is proof that they alone are God’s elite whom God will use to lead other Christians to the truth they have.
Jesus compared the prayers of the proud Pharisee who relied on his works and left in his sins with those of the humble sinner who humbly relied on God’s mercy and left justified. Friend what importance do you think God really places on their hair length? If the one crying for mercy were a female with cut hair would God have refused to justify her because she cut her hair? I think not. How would the story go if the Pharisee of Jesus day were a modern UPC woman praying, “I thank you for the revelation of 1 Corinthians 11. I thank You that I have never cut my hair, not like this other sinful lady”?
For about ten years I proudly believed that I taught (what I thought was) Biblical doctrine in Australia and overseas; that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches ladies not to ever cut or trim their hair. I now see I was wrong and apologise to any of you that have carried, or still carry this extra-Biblical yoke through my teaching or influence. I am sorry for misrepresenting the Word and character of God and I humbly thank Him for His grace to help me see my pride and errors. Please study and pray about this teaching.
I appeal to you my brother and sister, even if at this point you still disagree with me on what 1 Corinthians 11 teaches, that you agree with me that it is by no means related to the gift of Salvation, and that you agree God can and does and will forgive His prodigals whatever their hair length.
He accepts us all unconditionally as His children through our believing that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was substitutional and that His blood paid in FULL our sins, not in ANY way through our works of ‘obedience’, and especially not through any ‘obedience’ to something not clearly taught in the Bible or practiced in Jewish or Christian history.
Your brother in His Kingdom, 

Scriptures Prohibiting the Wearing of Pants by Women?  By Stephen Mann
A) Verses Teaching No Pants
I have cut and pasted all five verses prohibiting women wearing pants from my KJV. Please study the five verses below with an open mind and you will see what the Bible actually says about women not wearing pants….
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.
• 5.
(That’s right, friend, there are absolutely no verses at all that prohibit pants on women!)

B) Deuteronomy 22:5
Ah, but you say what about this verse…
• The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
Well quite simply, there are four reasons why I have difficulty with the no-pants interpretation from this passage…
• 1. The passage doesn’t clearly prohibit pants on women but there are very clear prohibitions for eating pork, not keeping Friday/Saturday (Sabbath) holy, not wearing mixed apparel of linen and wool etc., so even if there was (which there isn’t), it still wouldn’t mean it is for us today if it isn’t taught to Gentiles in the new covenant.
• 2. If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be seen as a law to be obeyed today, then a consistent interpretation would mean the prohibited mixed threads, Kosher foods and other laws in the same chapter should also be followed. Why are anti-pants teachers overlooking these others?
• 3. If the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle, it should also be applicable to prohibit other male garments on women such as t-shirts, boots, underwear, scarves, gloves, sneakers, etc. Why is this principle not followed to its natural implications?
• 4. Lastly, if the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle for today (and the previous three points are overlooked), then it remains to be proved that pants are men’s clothing. Culturally they were on women in China long before the Western men left off wearing tights (which by the same principle should be called men’s apparel!) and hence fail on historical grounds as well.

C) Hebrew for the word translated ‘garment’ 
Let’s look at the Hebrew word that ‘garment’ is translated from: 8071 simlah (sim-law’); Strong says: “perhaps by permutation for the feminine of 5566 (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); a dress.”
Some would focus in on the word Strong uses above (dress), saying that the word in this passage teaches that the dress is female attire. They overlook the fact that Strong goes on to say…
• “especially a mantle: apparel, cloth (-es, -ing), garment, raiment. comp. 8008.”
Strong says the majority of times it is translated raiment, clothes and garment (as it is here in Deuteronomy 22:5 in the KJV). Not once is it translated into the English word ‘dress’. Rather similar to when we say men and women’s dress sense, we are not talking about only female attire. The word means clothes, not dresses!
Some commentators teach the passage is specifically prohibiting women wearing men’s armour, but whether it’s apparel or armour there is no teaching here that pants are for men only.

D) Skirts 
While Deuteronomy 22 verse 5 is often quoted, verse 30 is often overlooked…
• “a man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt” Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV
If ladies wanted to legislate doctrine for men, here’s a good place they could have started!
Did men wear skirts back then?
• Yes!
Is it Biblical?
• Yes.
Here in verse 30 you have it straight from the KJV Bible that all you women wearing skirts are cross dressers! This is really men’s apparel. Consider this verse…
• Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily 1 Sam 24:4
There are many more Bible verses for men wearing skirts than women wearing them! The Bible speaks of men’s skirts twelve times: (Dt 22:30, Dt 27:20, Ru 3:9, 1 Sa 15:27, 1 Sa 24:4, 1 Sa 24:5, 1 Sa 24:11, 1 Sa 24:11, Eze 16:8, Hag 2:12, Hag 2:12, and Zec 8:23).
If you’re really going to follow the Bible literally and get back to Biblical men’s and women’s garments, then get those sewing machines buzzing, men, and stop those women from wearing your skirts!! (Yes I am joking.)

E) History 
In ancient Egypt their normal clothing was a loincloth wrapped around the hips and girdled at the waist. A cape was worn on the shoulders and later a long garment called a kalasiris was introduced. Men wore this as a skirt around their waist; women wore it over their upper body, or as a full-length garment that sometimes had sleeves.
The Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians all wore a long, sleeved garment similar to a nightshirt, with cloaks or kalasiris-like overgarments. These clothes appear to be stiff, with fringed and tasselled borders and square or rounded corners.
For thousands of years in history we don’t find pants and it is a relatively modern and culturally brief period of history where there was a distinction of pants only on men and dresses only on women.
Even today in the Pacific and other areas of the world, many continue to wear a sarong or robe on males and females with only a small distinction between them.

F) Summary 
There is no verse in the Scriptures prohibiting women wearing pants or saying that a dress was all a female could wear. Instead we find, in the Bible and in history, men wearing similar garments to women (what we would call dresses today).
There is also no Biblical precedent or teaching regarding males alone wearing pants. Although there may be some cultural norms in some countries today, there is no prohibition by God and it is never referred to (as many falsely preach today) as an abomination to God. This is a sad example of denominational ignorance and eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) instead of exegesis (reading the text’s meaning). 

Excerpt from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards ‘ by Ricky Guthrie
The UPCI teaches standards for men when there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that deals with dress codes for men except a man should not wear a woman’s clothing.
Many of the hardliners say men have to wear long sleeved shirts or they are being immodest. Where they get that teaching I have not the slightest idea.
In their manual they say that their young men cannot suit out for gym because it is immoral or immodest. They say that men cannot bare their legs in public, like wearing shorts, because it is immodest.
Again let us look at history.
There were ancient pictures found in a Babylonian ruin of a Hebrew man working in the fields. This was after the law was given on Sinai. This man was wearing only a long tunic that went from his waist to his knees. Another showed a man wearing a tunic below the knees. Both men were bare-chested and bare-footed. They were working in the fields.
It has been proven that in ancient Egypt, because of the extreme heat, the Egyptian men wore no shirt. Slaves were only given tunics to wear as they worked. We know that Joseph was sold into slavery. Do we contend that he was given special privileges? I don’t think so. Does this mean Joseph sinned against God?
What about all the Israelite men in slavery in Egypt? Did those who died in slavery lose their souls?
What about the fact that King Saul danced so much in the spirit that he danced his clothing off?  The people saw this but none said he was immodest.  The same thing with David.  We know he did the same when bringing the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem. UPCI contends he sinned and that is why Michal rebuked him, but notice it was not because he had sinned it was because Michal thought the King of Israel should be above such displays of emotion.
Then we have the story of Peter. After Christ rose again, Peter decided to go fishing. The KJV said he was naked. Other translations say he was stripped for work, which tells us he was bare-chested. Historically speaking, we find that Israelite men in the heat of the day when fishing, stripped down to their tunics. This is what Peter did. It was old habit and acceptable. UPCI begs to differ because they say he was embarrassed because when Jesus called, he put on his coat and jumped into the water.
What they don’t understand that at the time the waters were still cold and even then a fisherman’s coat was expensive and a very valuable part of their wardrobe. It kept them warm in the winter when they had to survive. No fisherman would leave their coat in the boat.
If this was due to the fact that Peter was backslid and sinning, why did not John write and tell us that Jesus rebuked Peter for being immodest? He did not because that was not considered immodest or sin.
There just are absolutely no standards in the Bible for men except the fact that a man is never to reveal his private parts in public. This is why God had the priest put on linen breeches when going up to the altar. Israel came out of slavery in Egypt and when the Egyptians wore robes they wore no under clothing, so if they climbed something you could look up their robes and see their private parts.
Are there rules and regulations in the Bible for us to live by? Absolutely! These are well documented in the gospels and epistles. We are told that we are not to lie, steal, cheat, gossip, tell tales. We are not to abuse one another, be deceitful. We are not to live in anger and bitterness. We are not to curse or cuss or use profanity. We are not to tell dirty jokes. We are not to commit adultery, fornication or homosexuality. Men are to be masculine and women effeminate. We are to be obedient to man’s laws as long as they do not try to force us to sin against God. We are to love one another as Christ loved us and to forgive each other immediately of any wrongdoing.
We are to live in peace and to owe no man anything. (Which means to pay our bills) We are not to slander one another. Be obedient to parents. Wives are to submit to their husbands as the head of the house, but men are to honor their wives, not abuse them or misuse them. Women are to dress modestly. These are just some of the rules of the Christian life. 

Excerpt  from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards ‘ 
by Ricky Guthrie
The only true argument they can use is the same old stale argument that prostitutes used make-up to seduce men and Jezebel wore it the day she tried to seduce Jehu.
Well, again historically speaking, if you study Judaism you will find that it is part of their belief that a man fails his wife if he does not provide her with jewelry and cosmetics to make herself look attractive for her husband. Also many of the women in the tribes wore heavy make-up when working in the fields because it protected their faces from the harsh sun.
Nowhere in the Bible do we find where the wearing of make-up is prohibited. This again lies with the fact that the ministry of the UPCI wants women to be subservient to men in all aspects, and as in a lot of their teachings, this comes back to human sexuality.
This constant fear of sexual sins. Nearly everything they teach basically comes down to what they think is immodest or what will lead their members to commit sexual sins.
They feel if they allow their women to wear make-up they will attract other men, so if they keep them looking like plain janes they will not commit sexual sins.  It does not matter how many times someone in their movement falls into sexual sin, they don’t change their stand.   

by Jason
The Scripture mostly used to support the teaching that one is not to wear make-up is:
• 2 Kings 9:30: And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.
Proponents of this teaching will say that we really don’t want to be a part of anything that has to do with Jezebel.
According to Thayer’s & Smith’s, ‘tired’ here is the Hebrew word ‘yatab’ which means, in short, ‘to be good, be pleasing, be well, be glad’. In other words, she combed her hair.
I can’t say it enough. If because Jezebel put on make-up, then make-up is a sin, then combing you hair is, too. This an just one more example of the lack of Bible scholarship in the UPC. I was always taught that Jezebel was trying to seduce her enemy here. But a basic reading of the text reveals that Jezebel knew she was going to die and was simply mocking her soon to be captor by fixing herself up for her death. She wasn’t putting on make-up to seduce anyone and neither do 85% of the women in the world!
Here is another good one:
• Jer 4:30 “‘And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do ? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.'”
Three things are cast in a negative light here (supposedly): 1) Jewelry 2) Make-up 3) The color red. Now the UPC condemns two of these things and they use this scripture to back themselves up, but they, like with braiding, choose to ignore part of the scripture. So, tell me, is it now a sin to wear red too?
I read where someone stated that “looking at a pattern of things in the Word of God, we can safely say that a Godly woman should not wear make-up. If Paul wrote to not wear gold, pearls, or costly array, do you think that make-up would be pleasing to God?”
Oh, so women should not braid their hair, either. I noticed they left that part out. The UPC’ers always say that ‘plaiting’ meant weaving gold into your hair. That might have applied at times, but most often women simply braided their hair without anything in it and I’ve yet to find anywhere that says it means anything other than braiding in general.
An adherent of the no make-up rule might state that the main point in this is actually not the make-up, but the spirit or attitude that would make a woman want to wear make-up that’s a sin.
If an 80 year old, happily married grandmother put on little lipstick, which of her motivations are comparable to Jezebel or prostitution? Are you actually suggesting that she is trying to incite lust? Give me a break! But you just about have it – it is the ‘spirit or attitude’ that makes something a sin, not the make-up itself! If a woman puts on make-up to attract men, she is in sin, but if she puts it on simply to look nice, like when she combs her hair, where is the sin?
Often a proponent of these standards teachings will bring up an extreme during a conversation, saying something to the effect that homosexuality will soon be socially accepted and that just because something becomes socially accepted, it is not a reason to do such things as wear make-up or for women to wear pants.
One big difference here. The Bible specifically condemns homosexuality , it does not condemn cut hair, pants or make-up on women.

Refuttation of the UPCI Teaching on Jewelry by Ricky Guthrie
According to the UPCI the Bible frequently associates jewelry with a proud attitude, an immoral lifestyle, or pagan worship. They take this stand based on the story of Jacob and the story of the golden calf. This is one of the reasons they say the wearing of jewelry is sinful.
In Genesis we find that Abraham sent his servant, Eliezer, to find his son Isaac a wife. Abraham sent him to some of his kinfolk. Eliezer met a young girl named Rebecca. When she told him whose family she was with, he gave her a gold nose ring and two gold bracelets. Later on we read where he gave her more jewelry, etc.
We all know that Abraham was called the friend of God. It is obvious that he did not think the wearing of jewelry was sinful or he would not have sent Eliezer with jewelry for the young future bride of his son, Isaac.
We also know that Rebecca was the mother of Jacob. The same Jacob the UPCI claims did away with the wearing of jewelry.
Jacob left his home because he took his brother’s birthright and went to his mother’s brother’s home. Here he married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. We have to understand that Laban did not worship Jehovah but worshipped household gods as we find in Genesis when Rachel stole her dad’s household gods.
It was in worship of these gods that the women wore certain types of jewelry. They wore amulets and charms also to ward off evil spirits. Jacob, who served Jehovah, knew in God’s sight these article of jewelry were wicked so he had them buried. This in no way tells us that the wearing of jewelry is sinful. The wearing of jewelry worn to ward off demonic spirits or worn in worship to false gods is wrong.
• 1 Peter 3:3, 5 – “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel…For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:”
Above, Peter instructs women to adorn themselves as the holy women of the ‘old time’ did, right? How about Rebecca? She was unquestionably a holy woman of the old time. Was she not one of the most prominent female figures of the Old Testament? Of course. So then, let’s look at some passages about Rebecca:
• Genesis 24:47, 53 – “And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands….And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebecca: he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things. “(KJV)
What? One of the women of old wore jewelry? Is the Bible contradicting itself? I hardly think so. So then Peter is not forbidding jewelry outright, he is forbidding excessive use of it and telling us not to let our outward appearance be what we are known by, but instead to be known by our meek and humble spirit.
In the passage below, God himself is putting jewelry on His people and referring to Israel’s beauty as ‘perfect through my comeliness.’ In fact, this passage even seems to suggest that God was glorified to the heathen as a result of Israel’s beauty.
• Ezekiel 16:9-14 – “Then washed I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.” (KJV) .
Later on when Joseph, Jacob’s son, was sold into slavery and became the second man in command in Egypt, we read where Pharaoh put a ring on his finger and a gold chain around his neck. We know that Joseph did not commit adultery with Potiphar’s wife for it was considered sin. If Jacob his father considered the wearing of jewelry sin, why did Joseph accept these articles of jewelry from Pharaoh? The reason is clear as a bell. His father did not think the wearing of all jewelry as sinful.
If Jacob had taken this stand, then he would have stood against his Grandfather and his own mother. We know his Grandfather gave his servant jewelry to give to Rebekah and she wore it.
When God spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, he told Moses to have the Israelites borrow jewelry from the Egyptians and for them to wear it. In his omniscience, God knew the Israelites would take this jewelry and wear it and later would take the jewelry and have Aaron melt it down and the golden calf would be formed and they would worship this calf as their god. Did this stop God from telling Moses to borrow the jewelry? NO!
Even though, after they had committed this grave sin, God did tell them to remove their jewelry it was not permanent.
We know that King Saul wore gold bracelets for this was told to us at the time of his death and again at the time when David composed his most famous song about Saul and Jonathan, he spoke of Saul who adorned the people with jewelry.
The Song of Solomon tells us that King Solomon wore gold chains. Also Daniel was given a gold chain by the King of Babylon.
We also read in the Book of Jeremiah where God said “Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.” (Jeremiah 2:32.) Also in the Isaiah 61, God spoke of a bridegroom wearing his ornaments.
The UPCI speaks of the time that God accused Israel of committing adultery against him in the same book of Isaiah as other proof that the wearing of jewelry is sin. Here in Isaiah 3 we read where God spoke of Israel as if she were a literal woman committing harlotry against him.
He speaks of all the jewelry she was wearing and said he would take away all of it from Israel. God also spoke of head-bands, cloaks, undergarments, bonnets, scarves, mantles, hoods, and veils. All this he was going to take away from Israel. Yet when you read UPCI’s stand on outward adornment and jewelry they say it is sin to wear jewelry but okay to wear headbands, undergarments, veils, scarves, etc. Doesn’t make sense does it?
When we turn over to Ezekiel the 16th chapter, when God again likened Israel to a real woman, he said he had clothed her in fine clothing and put rings on her fingers and rings in her ears and in her nose, and bracelets and gold chains and a gold crown.
This was Jehovah who said he had adorned Israel this way, and even though later in the same chapter we read where this same Israel used this jewelry to attract other lovers, God still said he would adorn her with all this jewelry.
If throughout the Old Testament we find that God told Israel to wear jewelry, why does UPCI teach something blatantly different?
Both Peter and Paul wrote that women should not put so much emphasis on outward appearance, so they both mentioned the wearing of gold or pearls. If you read their writings in the original language, you come to the understanding that they were not forbidding jewelry from being worn but were saying things such as a meek and mild spirit etc. was better adornment. They both were speaking of moderation. If we took what Peter said in the light of how the UPCI interprets what he said in I Peter the third chapter, we would come to the conclusion that Peter was telling the women not to wear clothing.
UPCI tends to have this attitude that if something has ever been used for evil then it becomes strictly evil. People have used jewelry for sexual purposes or for prideful purposes so they say it is a sin to wear it. If God felt that way about everything that has been used to sin with, he would have destroyed the world a long time ago.
One good example of this is the act of sex. It is one of the greatest sins committed daily in life (adultery and rape etc.) but God has not forbidden the use of this act in marriage just because mankind has used the act to sin with.
The wearing of jewelry is not sinful, neither for men nor for women. Also, for those who take a stand against this trend of men wearing earrings or women wearing nose rings, the people of Israel wore both.

“It is a rule in the UPCI that no licensed Minister may publicly contend for any view that may bring disunity to the organization, the mouths of Prophets within this group are gagged and the pens of scribes are forbidden to write. With this form of ecclesiastical censorship lording over the rank and file of this organization, there will never be a public questioning of Dr. Segraves’s beliefs which he publishes to be true when they are false. Since there can be no publicized dissent of his opinions and theories from within the ranks of the UPCI, someone outside of this organization must take up the responsibility to call his prophetic beliefs false.” – Pastor Rev. Reckart
Brief History
The roots of Oneness Pentecostalism can be traced in the North American Pentecostal movement during the early 1900s. During a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California in the late 1913 or early 1914 conducted by the Assemblies of God (AG), one minister by the name of John G. Scheppe revealed that during his night of meditation it was revealed to him that baptism must be done “in the name of Jesus only” and not “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Several AG ministers including R.E McAlister, Frank J. Ewart, Glenn A. Cook, and Garfield T. Haywood, began teaching this “new issue.”
While this “baptismal formula” began as a friendly debate it developed into a fierce controversy over the nature of Godhead. This “new issue” made a rift between the AG movement that prompted J. Roswell Flower to oppose Oneness theology and baptismal formula in their Third General Council in 1915. In their Fourth General Council in 1916, the AG ministers adopted a “Statement of Fundamental Truths” that forcefully maintained the Trinity doctrine, that banned the 156 of the 585 AG ministers.
The Nature of the Trinity is Essential Nicene Christian Doctrine.
The June 1997 issue of Charisma features an article by executive editor J. Lee Grady entitled, “The Other Pentecostals,” reporting on the estimated 17 million Oneness Pentecostals worldwide with 2.1 million in the United States.
Grady calls Pentecostalism a “house divided.” While Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals alike trace their roots back to the Azusa Street Revival of  l906, Oneness Pentecostals have been “separated from their brethren by a nasty doctrinal feud that split families and churches.” Today younger leaders in the Oneness movement hope to end the feud and lead their movement into the mainstream church. “It is disturbing enough to read that 17 million Oneness believers are following a theology that rejects the biblical doctrine of the trinity. Even more troubling is the article’s suggestion that among many evangelicals this Oneness error is not terribly significant!” [sic] 

Witchcraft (also called witchery), in historical, anthropologicalreligious, and mythological contexts, is the use of alleged supernatural or magical powers or spells.

Please Note:  Direct Relationship:
You can enter into a deep, joyful and fulfilling relationship with the One Creator of heaven and earth without having anyone else involved in that relationship aside from the two of you: God and yourself.
Don’t let anyone tell you that your Creator is “unapproachable”. You don’t need anyone to stand between you and Him. 
He is close to all who call upon Him in truth (Psalm 145:18). – Rabbi Eli Cohen
Posted in Cults, Hyper-experientialism, Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Muhammad Ali knockout Sonny Liston


A reposting of Uri Yosef’s THE “LAST AND FINAL SACRIFICE” TAKES THE TEN-COUNT after a Christian apologist made this comment recently. May it be a light to anyone seeking the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

“The reason Jews as a whole haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as Messiah is partly because of hard hearts, and partly because Jesus came to die for our sins. It was foreseen by God the Father that He would be rejected, per Isaiah 53 – which Jews have NEVER been able to “explain” – which then paved the way for His once-for-all sacrifice for sin.”


Professor Uri Yosef

Christian missionaries claim that those who do not accept Jesus as their lord and
savior, which includes the Jewish people, are doomed to burn in “hell” because
they cannot have their sins forgiven by God. This claim is rationalized with the
allegation that, in Biblical times, the only way to bring about the remission of sins
was via the blood of a certain animal. This animal had to be brought to the priest
to be slaughtered at the altar in the Sanctuary, first while in the portable
Sanctuary and later in the Temple, as a sacrificial offering. According to this
claim, since there has been no Temple standing in Jerusalem since the year 70
C.E., valid sacrificial offerings can no longer be made and, therefore, the only
way for Jews to have their sins forgiven is through the blood shed by Jesus in his
“sacrificial” death on the cross. In other words, the claim is that the blood of
Jesus, who was allegedly sacrificed by God (the “Father”) as a demonstration of
his great love for mankind,
has once and for all removed the stain of “Original
Sin” from those who follow Jesus (the “Son”). This act of love by God allegedly
made Jesus the “last and final sacrifice” forever.

There are two main aspects to the claim that Jesus was “the last and final
sacrifice”. The first concerns the suitability of Jesus and his death as a sacrificial
offering for the remission of sins. The second aspect, which was investigated in
another essay, concerns the need for blood in the atonement process.
This essay examines the suitability of Jesus and the manner in which he died as
a sacrificial offering for the remission of sins.

The process for testing this claim by Christian missionaries consists of
contrasting the requirements concerning sacrificial offerings, as specified in the
Hebrew Bible, against the accounts in the New Testament that describe the
death of Jesus on the cross as a sacrificial offering. As part of this analysis, it is
important to bear in mind the following two conditions that existed during the life
of Jesus, at the time of his death, and for several decades following his death:
 The Second Temple was still standing in Jerusalem
 The Hebrew Bible was the Scripture in force

The salient issue to be addressed, and answered, is:
According to the requirements set forth in the Hebrew Bible, was Jesus a valid sacrificial
offering, and was his death by crucifixion an acceptable process, for remission of sins?
The analytical phase of the testing process identifies ten elements for which the
respective accounts in the New Testament are compared with the specifications
provided in the Hebrew Bible, primarily in the Torah.

According to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was crucified by
Roman soldiers:
John 19:18,23(KJV) – (18) Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either
side one, and Jesus in the midst.
(23) Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made
four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam,
woven from the top throughout. [See also Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33.]
According to the Levitical Law of Sacrifice in the Torah, the animal brought as
a sin sacrifice had to be slaughtered by the person who offered it:

Leviticus 4:27-29 – (27) And if any one person from among the common people sins
unwittingly, by performing one of the commandments of the Lord which may not be
done, and incurs guilt; (28) Or if his sin, which he has committed, is made known to
him, then he shall bring his sacrifice, an unblemished female goat, for his sin which he
has sinned. (29) And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and he
shall slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

According to the Levitical Law of Sacrifice in the Torah, some of the blood of
the (sin) sacrifice had to be rubbed by the priest with his finger on the horns of
the altar in the Temple, and the rest had to be poured out at the base of the
sacrificial altar. The fat of the sacrifice had to be removed and burnt:

Leviticus 4:30-31 – (30) And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, and
put [it] upon the horns of the altar [used] for the burnt offering; and [then] he shall
pour out all of [the rest of] its blood at the base of the altar. (31) And he shall remove
all of its fat, as was removed the fat from the sacrificial peace offerings; and the priest
shall burn it upon the altar for a pleasant fragrance to the Lord; and [thus] shall the
priest make an atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.
 The New Testament is silent on what was done with the blood of Jesus and
with the fat of his body.

According to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was beaten,
whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified:

Matthew 26:67(KJV) – Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others
smote him with the palms of their hands, [See also Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63; John 18:22.]
Matthew 27:26,30-31(KJV) – (26)Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he
had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
(30) And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. (31) And
after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own
raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. [See also Mark 15:15-20; John 19:1-3.]

According to the Torah, a sacrificial animal had to be without any physical
defects or blemishes:

Deuteronomy 17:1 – You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep that
has in it a blemish or any bad thing, for that is an abomination to the Lord, your God.

Sidebar Note: As a born Jew, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day following
his birth, a ritual that leaves a scar (Genesis 17:10-13; the “sign of the covenant”).
The circumcision of Jesus is mentioned in the New Testament (Luke 2:21), yet Paul
refers to circumcision as being tantamount to mutilation (Galatians 5:11-12;
Philippians 3:2).

 According to the New Testament, Jesus was “the Lamb of God” whose bones
may not be broken [a reference to the Paschal Lamb of Exodus 12:46 and
Numbers 9:12]:
John 1:29(KJV) – The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 19:36(KJV) – For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A
bone of him shall not be broken.

 According to the Torah, the Paschal Lamb was not offered for the removal of
sins. Rather, it was a festive, or commemorative, offering. Yom Kippur (the
Day of Atonement) would have been a more appropriate time for a sin

Numbers 29:11 – One young male goat for a sin offering, beside the sin offering of
atonement, and the continual burnt offering, and its meal offering, and their drink
offerings. [Yom Kippur – Individual sin offering]

Leviticus 16:15 – He shall then slaughter the he goat of the people’s sin offering and
bring its blood inside the dividing curtain, and he shall do with its blood as he did with
the blood of the bull and sprinkle it upon the cover of the ark, and before the cover of
the ark. [Yom Kippur – Communal sin offering]

 According to the Torah, the Paschal Lamb had to be slaughtered and its
blood used to place markings on the side-posts and lintels of the entrances to
the dwelling. Moreover, the meat had to be roasted and eaten, and whatever
was not consumed by the time the Israelites were to leave their homes, had
to be burnt and destroyed:

Exodus 12:6-10 – (6) And you shall keep it under watch until the fourteenth day of this
month; and the entire congregation of the community of Israel shall slaughter it at
dusk. (7) And they shall take [some] of its blood, and place it on the two doorposts and
on the lintel, on the houses in which they will eat it. (8) And they shall eat the meat in
that night, roasted over fire, and [with] unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall
eat it. (9) You shall not eat from it raw, nor boiled in water; but roasted over fire, its
head with its legs, and with its inner parts. (10) And you shall not leave any of it until
morning; and that which left over until the morning you shall burn in the fire.

 According to the accounts in the New Testament this was not done with
Jesus after his death. In fact, Jesus was buried.

Matthew 27:57-60(KJV) – (57) When the even was come, there came a rich man of
Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: (58) He went to
Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be
delivered. (59) And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen
cloth, (60) And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he
rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. [See also Mark 15:42-46;
Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42.]

 According to the New Testament, the death of Jesus was a sacrificial offering
that expiated the sins of mankind for all times:
Hebrews 10:10,18(KJV) – (10) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
(18) Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. [See also
Romans 6:10; Hebrews 9:12.]

 According to the Torah, the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, had to be
offered on an individual (per household) basis, not as a communal offering:
Numbers 28:22 – And one young male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for

 According to the New Testament, the death and blood of Jesus took care of
(almost) all sins:
Hebrews 9:22(KJV) – And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and
without shedding of blood is no remission.

 According to the Levitical Law of Sacrifice in the Torah, the sacrificial sin
offering brought atonement only for unintentional sins, except as noted in
Leviticus 5:1-6, 20-26[Leviticus 5:1-6, 6:1-7 in Christian Bibles]:
Numbers 15:27-31 – (27) And if a person sins inadvertently, then he shall offer a female
goat in its first year as a sin offering. (28) And the priest shall atone for the erring
person who sinned inadvertently before the Lord in order to make atonement on his
behalf; and it shall be forgiven him. (29) For the native born of the children of Israel
and the stranger who resides among them, one law shall apply to him who sins
inadvertently. (30) And the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is a
native born or a stranger, that person blasphemes the Lord; and that person shall be
cut off from among his people. (31) Because he has scorned the word of the Lord, and
has violated his commandment; that person shall surely be cut off, for his iniquity is
upon him.

 According to the New Testament, the death of Jesus brought about the
remission of sins yet uncommitted, and of sins of those yet to be born:
Hebrews 10:18(KJV) – Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for

 According to the Levitical Law of Sacrifice in the Torah, sacrifices could bring
atonement only for sins committed prior to the offering of the sacrifice. No
sacrifice was provided for the atonement of sins committed after the sacrifice
was offered and, thus, no sacrifice can bring atonement for sins of people
born after it was offered. This includes both טּאתָחַ (haTAT)], a sin offering,
described in Leviticus 4:1-5:13, and שׁםָאָ (aSHAM), a guilt offering,
described in Leviticus 5:14-26. Had there been, among the listed sacrifices,
even one kind of sin or guilt offering that could bring atonement for future
sins, the person who would have offered that particular sacrifice would not
have had to do so again for the rest of his life. Moreover, Yom Kippur (the
Day of Atonement), which is ordained by the Torah as an annual Holy Day
(Leviticus 16:29-34), would have had to be celebrated by the Israelites only
the very first time after the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai, had they used one
of those “super” sacrificial offerings that could atone for sins of the future.

The claim by the author of Hebrews, that there are no more sin offerings
required following the death of Jesus, is false for other reasons as well:

 The Second Temple stood in Jerusalem for nearly 40 years following the death of
Jesus, during which time literally thousands of animals were offered as sacrifices
of all sorts, including sin and guilt offerings, as prescribed by the Torah.

 The Hebrew Bible contains prophecies about the building of the Third Temple in
the messianic era, and of the resumption of the sacrificial system at that time. All
the types of sacrificial offerings described in the Hebrew Bible will be made on the
sacrificial altar [חַ בֵּזְמִ (mizBE’ah)] in the Temple, including both the טּאתָחַ and
שׁםָאָ sacrificial offerings. In other words, the sacrificial system, which has been
in a state of suspension since the year 70 C.E., when the Romans destroyed the
Second Temple, will be completely restored in the messianic era:

Ezekiel 43:21-22 – And you shall take the bull of the sin offering, and he [the priest]
shall burn it at the edge of the Temple, outside the Sanctuary. (22) And on the
second day you shall offer an unblemished he-goat for a sin offering, and they [the
priests] shall purify the altar as they purified it with the bull. [See also: Isaiah 56:7;
Jeremiah 33:17-18; Ezekiel 40:39,46-47, 41:42, 42:13, 43:13,15,18-19,22,25-27,
44:27,29, 45:17,19,22-23,25, 46:20, 47:1; Zechariah 14:21.]

 According to the New Testament, God’s “only begotten son” died on the cross
for the sins of mankind, and all who accept this belief are “saved” (i.e., get
salvation) and will go to heaven:
Romans 5:8-11(KJV) – (8) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Much more then, being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. (10) For if, when we were enemies,
we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we
shall be saved by his life.(11) And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. [See also Acts 10:43;
1Corinthians 15:3; 1Peter 3:18.]

 The Hebrew Bible strictly prohibits (human) vicarious atonement, and
mandates that everyone is responsible for his or her own sins:
Deuteronomy 24:16 – Fathers shall not be put to death because of children, nor shall
children be put to death for fathers; each person shall be put to death for his own sin.
[See also Exodus 32:31-33; Numbers 35:33.]

 According to the New Testament, Jesus was “God manifest in the flesh” (this
would make it a human sacrifice):
Romans 8:3(KJV) – For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in
the flesh: [See also 1Timothy 3:16; 1John 4:2.]

 The Hebrew Bible strictly prohibits human sacrifices. The concept of human
sacrifices to a deity is foreign to Judaism. Human sacrifice is a pagan rite:
Leviticus 18:21 – And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass through the fire
for Molech, and shall not profane the name of your God; I am the Lord. [See also
Deuteronomy 18:10; Jeremiah 7:31, 19:32; Ezekiel 23:37-39.]

Source: http://thejewishhome.org/counter-index.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment


download (2)

Footloose Book Burning Scene

My sermon from Friday, June 5th, 2020

By Stuart Federow

In Judaism, The Satan is not the devil. There is no evil entity outside of the human heart, that curses us, or that fights with Gd like another god, over human souls. Instead, The Satan is an angel who works for Gd, like a district attorney or prosecuting attorney. The Satan does not fight against Gd, but rather The Satan is an angel who works for the Heavenly Court to find out what the truth is, by operating sting operations on human beings with the permission of the Judge, who is Gd.

But where is the evil? It is not, therefore, in an entity that fights against Gd, over human souls. The evil is not in the entity that sets up the sting operations to give us the opportunity to choose right or wrong. The evil is in the human heart that makes the choice to do good or to do evil, and The Satan is just doing Gd’s work of giving people the opportunity to express what is already there, to make the choice between doing what is right, and doing what is wrong, and therefore earning the reward or the punishment that comes with the choice.

The only version of the movie Footloose that I have seen is the one with Kevin Bacon. In that movie, the minister, at a point late in the movie, is confronted with a bunch of his own congregants burning books. He tells them that the evil is not in the books, it is in their own hearts, and it is the evil in their own hearts that must be eliminated.

There are those today in the world, who want to blame something outside of the human heart, for the evils that human beings perpetrate. They want to say that racism is systemic in the United States, and it is therefore the United States that must be fundamentally changed. But these United States of America are just states bonded together by laws, and any bad that is in the Laws of the Land are only there because of the bad that was in the hearts of those who made those laws. Saying that it is the United States that is racist is just as wrong as saying that this is a Christian country. It may have been founded by Christians, but those same Christians created a country where the separation of Church and State is a prized value. There is no religious test for election to public office. These United States welcome all faiths, and all races and faiths are welcome to join us in the Grand Experiment that creates the American Dream, for which many of all races and faiths come TO this land, legally and illegally, to make real that dream. We are not a Christian country, and we are not an evil racist country, either.

Remember, too, that it is the good hearts of those who make the laws of the land, that see to it that the bad laws created by bad people are changed. It is the good people who changed the laws that advanced hate and prejudice, that were made by bad people. This is what has happened over the last 70 years or so. Good people have made Good laws and eliminated bad laws made by bad people.

This is just as true for the states, and the counties, and the cities, as it is true for the United States Congress.

What we need to change, what we must change, is the hearts of humanity, the heart of each individual. We must change the hearts of all the people in Congress, no matter who is walking in those halls in any given year, and we must change the hearts of those who reside in the White House no matter who occupies it in any given year, and we must change the hearts of those in the state legislatures, who hold county offices, and are on the city councils in any given year, and yes, in the hearts of every single individual police officer, and yes, every single person who has a heart, because it is his or her heart that must be changed to erase racism from the world.

It wasn’t the whole police force whose knees were on the neck of George Floyd. It was the knee of one individual who had been in trouble before, who was knowingly allowed by other individuals to remain in a position of power, and by other fellow officers who did not act when his knee was on George Floyd’s neck. It is not in institutions, hate is in the heart of the individual, and in the hearts of the individuals who make up the institutions.

This is why it is so hard to fight racism. It is not in some esoteric entity, like a country, or a police force, it is in each individual who makes up the esoteric entity, who makes up the congress or the police force, who makes up our societies. Hate of any kind is in every individual in our society, and that means in each of us, too, and how can we eradicate what is beneath the surface in every one of us who walks this earth?

Its easy to point a finger at institutions, but if we don’t change the human heart, the institutions won’t change, because they cannot change without changing the hearts of those who make up those institutions.

How do we fight that? How do we go about changing the hearts of every individual whose heart harbors hate?

I don’t know. I wish I did know. I do, however, have a suggestion, I will get to in a minute.

But I know that it is in each of us, and not in an institution, rather hate is in those who make up that institution. We cannot progress until we stop denying the existence of evil in the human heart. Humans are not inherently Good. But neither are they inherently Bad. Good is not the norm, an idea that makes being bad an aberration. Bad is a choice, no differently than Good is a choice. Until we go about solving the problem by changing the hearts of each individual human being, nothing will change.

When Gd gave us the laws at Mt. Sinai, Gd did not care about race. Race never comes up in the Torah, except in one place, and that place is coming up in a Torah portion quite soon. And the text is clear, Gd condemns racism and condemns racists. A person’s race is just not a concern of Judaism, the laws are given for everyone, and anyone and everyone of any race can become a Jew by conversion to the faith of the Jews, to Judaism.

Values, morality, ethics, goodness and evil, how to connect to Gd and how to connect with other human beings and how to connect with all of Gd’s creation, these are the concerns of Gd and Judaism. Not race.

Our faith does not say of those who don’t belong to our faith, ‘you are condemned.’ Our faith just says, ‘live and let live, you do your thing and leave us the heqq alone to do our thing.’ Our faith does not limit who gets in to heaven to only those who adhere to our beliefs, that idea is an inherent divider, and separator of humanity. It condemns those outside of one’s group, and the first step to racism begins with an us-them mentality.

It is Judaism that teaches us, and the world, that we are all made in the image of Gd, and it is the Hebrew prophet Malachi that asks us, “Have we not all one Father? Has not one Gd created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, profaning the covenant of our ancestors?”

So, yes, I do believe that one way to eradicate racism and hate is to for we Jews to be a light to the nations and to seek out others to join us and our faith. But that is just me. And its open to debate. Being a Jew does not eliminate racism from the Jewish heart, unless the Jew embraces Judaism, and unless a Jew internalizes Judaism’s values, morals and ethics.

This leads me to believe there is a solution, a way to change the heart of everyone. The real answer is to study and learn how one obtains for one’s self, one’s values. Why do some Jews uphold Judaism’s distinctive values, while other Jews do not? What makes someone internalize and make one’s own, a certain set of values and morals and ethics, and what makes that person reject other values and morals and ethics? What is it that makes one choose racism and hate, over acceptance and love? We know how a person acquires a language, maybe we need to study how a person acquires values, morals, and ethics for themselves? That, I believe, is the key to eradicating hate and racism from the human heart! Learn how hate and racism and evil get into the human heart, and learn how love and acceptance and good get into the human heart and then work on the latter! And not just everyone else’s heart, but in my heart and your heart, as well. Its not just ‘them’ that needs a change of heart, it is each of ‘us,’ and it is me and it is you and it is everyone we know.

Something has to change, and what changes is here in the heart, and not out there in the world, and I know how it begins, it begins with The Man In The Mirror.

May Gd give us that strength, that is needed to Change.

And let us all say, Amein!


Source: https://www.facebook.com/stuart.federow/posts/10220465402677894

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Stats about Systemic Racism

OKAY!! Here is the stats about SYSTEMIC RACISM for all of you Race warriors out there! These figures are directly from the FBI!

TOTAL KILLED BY POLICE……1004 (nationwide)





Keep in mind that these are nationwide killing in a population of some 360 Million plus….

Total unarmed killed..
41/360,000,000=.0000113888889% of total population

Total unarmed Blacks killed..
10/360,000,000= .0000027777778%

Total unarmed whites killed…
20/360,000,000= .0000055555556%






#BLM  #GeorgeFloyd #riot #Democrat #Antifa #BlackLivesMatter #Communist

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The pastor of a Tampa megachurch is facing charges after refusing to close its doors

Tampa megachurch pastor arrested after leading packed services despite ‘safer-at-home’ orders


The pastor of a Tampa megachurch is facing charges after refusing to close its doors despite a “safer at home” order in effect in Hillsborough County, meant to stop the spread of COVID-19. The sheriff says up to 500 people were in attendance at Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne’s Sunday services.

Howard-Browne, 58, turned himself in Monday afternoon after Sheriff Chad Chronister and State Attorney Andrew Warren on Monday announced an arrest warrant had been issued for charges of unlawful assembly and violating public health emergency rules of isolation and quarantine. Howard-Browne was released 40 minutes later after posting a $500 bond.



Source: https://www.fox5ny.com/news/tampa-megachurch-pastor-arrested-after-leading-packed-services-despite-safer-at-home-orders

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


One of the big stories from Super Tuesday is the fact that the Boomer vote actually INCREASED from 2016. Yes, increased! There are MORE of the old c*nts!
Here’s an infographic that will scare the shit out of you:

It’s an exit poll, showing the percentage of voters in the 18-29 age group voting state-by-state in 2016 (Blue) and 2020 (Red). Alabama, for example, shows a drop in the 18-29 age group from 14% in 2016 to around 10% this time round.


Every single state shows exactly the same pattern — less young voters!


This can only mean two things — (1) young people are mysteriously disappearing or (2) boomers are miraculously increasing, possibly even coming back from the dead!


Of course, there is a third possibility, namely that young people are more busy than ever on social media, porn sites, and gaming to be bothered waiting in line to vote for some old Boomer.


Whatever the reason, it looks like the Boomer Reich is here to stay. Possibly forever.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Town has launched a 2,5 million euro project Finnish Rape Defense (rape macarena)

But First…

Finland’s New Government Is Young And Led By Women—Here’s What The Country Does To Promote Diversity

Sanna Marin is Finland’s new prime minister—news that traveled fast across the world due to her age, and gender.

The new Prime Minister’s age is notable. At 34 years-old, she is the youngest prime minister in the world. She joined the recently elected prime ministers of New Zealand, Salvador and Ukraine in the under 40 years-old group.

Then there has been the focus on gender. The new female prime minister’s coalition government was formed with all five party leaders being women – the majority being under 40-years of age, also. A photograph of the new prime minister with three of her women cabinet members (all in their thirties) quickly made the headlines. Less encouraging and sarcastic voices suggested that “given all the gender talk” the photo lacked “gender-balance”.

Feminists across countries applauded and congratulated the new prime minister inspired what might promise more change and innovative solutions to come. Others were more critical. How could such “unexperienced” woman be entrusted with all that power. Sexist tendencies could also be observed: maybe not unexpected, some (mainstream) media coverage commented on the looks of the new Finnish Prime Minister. The German Tagesschau, for example, received much push-back on social media for having referred to Prime Minister Sanna Marin as ”beautiful & young” (“hübsch & jung”).

How did Finland get there? Below are some key take-aways.

Today In: Leadership

The pipeline matters. Finland has continued to rank high on the World Economic Forum’s Annual Gender Gap Report Index. In 2018, Finland occupied place 4 of 149 ranked countries. Notable are the country’s overall high – and also gender-equal – achievements in health and education that have contributed to women’s high economic and political participation. Finland’s cabinet features a significant number of women: twelve portfolios are represented by women, only seven by men. Marin herself was previously Minister of Transport. Moreover, almost half (47%) of the country’s parliamentarians, are women. Finland is joined by European parliaments in Belgium, Spain and Sweden which the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) considers to be gender balanced – that is at least 40% of each gender. Compare this to Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, and Malta where women account for less than 20% of parliamentarians (EIGE’s 2019 Gender Equality Index). Finland has reason to celebrate an overall impressive pipeline of female politicians with the potential to continue to advance to top political (and business) leadership.

The culture of gender diversity is key. Having a strong pipeline does not necessarily translate to results in top leadership. We know that globally women often graduate in higher numbers (and with better grades) from universities across various academic disciplines. Yet, such talent pipeline is frequently leaking due to lack of public and private sector “demand”, or women deciding themselves, not to put themselves forward for top positions (a drop in “supply”). In addition to structural enablers (including ways to address “unconscious bias”), culture plays a significant role. Take the example of Iceland, where Vigdis Finnbogadottir was the first and the longest sitting woman president in the world (1980–1996). Boys (and girls under the age of eight) had only ever known a woman to be president. As a result, boys were questioning if men could possibly be president of their country some day. How does the World Economic Forum rank Iceland in its 2018 Gender Equality Report? First place! As Laura Liswood (author of the “Loudest Duck” narrating the Icelandic anecdote) puts it: “We quickly come to believe that our experiences and our observations represent not only how the world works, but also how it should work.”

Other enablers (such as quotas, childcare) can help build the pipeline. Research from the past 30 years suggests that quota provisions and the type of electoral system are good predictors for women’s representation in parliament across countries. Voluntary party quotas can also be an effective means to boost the share of women in parliament, but to a lesser extend than parliamentary quotas (European Political Science Review).

Overall, 10 European Union member states (though not Finland) instituted legislative candidate quotas to increase gender balance in parliaments. Yet, the Finnish Equality Act (while not applying to bodies chosen via elections) includes a quota provision that requires state-administration committees, advisory boards, and others to have at least 40% of both women and men. Finland was also the first country in Europe to allow universal and equal suffrage.

Some argue that countries should explore ways in which to proactively support representation of youth in parliament. According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), two-thirds of 70 parliaments examined had 2% or fewer young parliamentarians (defined at age 30 or younger) in 2014. The same research confirmed that all upper houses studied had less than 6% young adults in their ranks, with three quarters electing no young person at all. Is there a case to be made for parliamentary quotas for youth, as authors of a 2018 article in the European Science Review suggest?

As the large share of care responsibilities continues to rest with women, childcare support can play an important role in accelerating women’s leadership. The World Bank Group’s Women, Business and the Law program highlights a significant correlation between childcare support and women’s representation in parliaments: government support to employers, childcare centres and parents for early childcare can increase the likelihood of women’s representation of 25% or more in national parliaments. Or looking at it the other way, 25% or more female representation in parliaments increases the likelihood of laws mandating government support to parents, employers and childcare centres for preschool childcare services for older age groups.

How does Finland fare regarding aspects of childcare support? Only around 13% of households reported unmet needs for formal childcare services in Finland, compared to around 86% of households reporting unmet needs in Portugal and 60% in Greece. Moreover, in contrast to most of the European Union countries, in Finland eligibility for parental leave is not constrained by employment status, duration or type of employment.

What is the common denominator among women who advance to the top posts of government?

In a 2010 interview, Laura Liswood, the secretary general of the Council of Women World Leaders (which is composed of 74 of women presidents, prime ministers, and heads of government) put it this way: “By and large one common denominator is that women have a passion and a desire to change things.”

One thing is clear: the world will be watching Prime Minister Sanna Marin and her new cabinet. The world’s oldest prime minister (94-years old), Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad, offered this wisdom to the youngest prime minister: “Ask old people for advice and hold onto your idealism.”

As the recent Finnish experience has shown, maybe it is also time for more traditional politicians to listen more carefully to advice from youth?

My home town has launched a 2,5 million euro project called Safe Oulu that aims at combating the (migrant) rape crisis. This is where the money goes. Kill me now. At least, be kind and lobotomize me so I won’t have to live with this image in my head.

This is not the first time the Liberals in Finland displayed their cluelessnesson this same issue. From 2016 Finnish Rape Defense Video “Use The Farce!”


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Meghan to return to stripping to make a living


Meghan Markle will take up her old career of wallpaper stripping in order to make ends meet, after leaving the Royal family.

Markle, who achieved NVQ 1 & 2 in Painting and Decorating at Sussex Tech, will once again help out local decorators by stripping, prepping and filling walls.

Markle told Cutting News that 95% of a good paint finish is down to the preparation beforehand, and the correct choice in sanding blocks.

‘I like to soak the paper for 20 minutes minimum,’ said the former HRH.

‘Start with the steamer at the top of the wall, and always use a fresh blade,’ added Markle.


Source: http://cuttingnews.co.uk/news/meghan-to-return-to-stripping-to-make-a-living/



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

‘Every Junction to have its own beggar by 2020,’ promises Government

The Government have promised that every set of traffic lights and junction will have its own beggar by Spring 2020 at the latest.


The bold boast has come from Minister for Traffic Lights, Jim Morgan, who wants a dedicated homeless man, or woman, on every mini traffic island within 6 months.

Morgan has assured doubters that this once Atlanta centric idea will be spread out to the provinces and rural areas with immediate effect.

‘This government will not accept the criticism that this policy only works in the South East,’ said Morgan.

‘I’m proud to say that even the North East, and North West are enjoying a good range of traffic light beggars,’ he added.

Beggars unable to make it in the booming economy of Texas are now migrating to Georgia, as of last report.


Moving to Georgia?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

40 years ago: Iran students seize U.S. Embassy in Tehran

One of the hostages held at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran is shown to the crowd by Iranian students. Forty years ago on Nov. 4, 1979, Iranian students overran guards to take over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, starting a 444-day hostage crisis that transfixed America. Associated Press/Nov. 8, 1979
One of the hostages held at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran is shown to the crowd by Iranian students. Forty years ago on Nov. 4, 1979, Iranian students overran guards to take over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, starting a 444-day hostage crisis that transfixed America.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On Nov. 4, 1979, Iranian students overran guards to take over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, starting a 444-day hostage crisis that transfixed America.

After a three-hour struggle, the students took hostages, including 62 Americans, and demanded the extradition of the deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was receiving medical treatment in the United States for the cancer that ultimately would kill him. Some hostages would later be released amid the crisis, but it would take over a year for all to be freed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

On the day of the takeover, The Associated Press actually had no presence in Iran. Two months earlier, Iranian authorities had shut down the AP’s bureau in Tehran, throwing out four foreign correspondents for the cooperative over its reporting of a Kurdish uprising in western Iran. Two Iranian staffers for the AP were ordered to stop working for the agency.

The AP story shows how the agency adapted, relying on bureaus around the world to monitor broadcasts and make calls, including its Middle East headquarters, which at the time was in Nicosia, Cyprus.

Iranian authorities ultimately relented and allowed the AP to resume its news operations. But by January 1980, Iran threw out the AP and all American journalists. The AP ultimately would return to Iran and re-establish a presence in 1995 and later a bureau that it still operates there today.

Now, 40 years later, the AP is making its story and photos of the U.S. Embassy takeover available. The story has been edited for typographical errors, but maintains the AP style of the day.                                                                                                                             

– Associated Press/Nov. 8, 1979 Protesters chant outside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran.

A mob of Iranian students overran U.S. Marine guards in a three-hour struggle Sunday and invaded the American Embassy in Tehran, seizing dozens of staff members as hostages, Tehran Radio reported. They demanded that the United States send the exiled shah back to Iran for trial, the radio said.

No serious injuries were reported. Tehran Radio said as many as 100 hostages were being held, but an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said he believed it was fewer than 45 — about 35 Americans and seven or eight Iranians.

The spokesman, reached in Tehran by telephone from New York, said an estimated 200 or 300 students were involved.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Jack Touhy said it was estimated 59 persons were being held captive and there was no firm evidence the invaders were armed. He said a State Department working group was set up to monitor the situation and added the U.S. government would have no immediate comment on the demand that the shah be returned to Iran.

White House spokesman Alan Raymond reported in Washington that President Carter, spending the weekend at the Camp David retreat, was in contact with his national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance and Defense Secretary Harold Brown.

The Tehran Radio broadcasts, monitored in London, said the embassy’s Marine guards hurled tear-gas canisters but were unable to hold back the waves of students. None of the broadcasts mentioned any weapons besides the tear gas.

Japan’s Kyodo News Service reported from Tehran that the invaders called a news conference in the embassy compound and a sweater-clad man in his mid-20s told reporters, “We will continue to stay here and won’t release any of the hostages until the United States returns the ousted shah, which is what the Iranian people want.”

There were reports that the hostages were blindfolded and handcuffed. The Foreign Ministry spokesman denied this, saying the embassy takeover was “a very peaceful exercise. They are dealing with them very nicely.”

But television film broadcast in some Western countries showed a few hostages in front of an embassy building who were blindfolded and either bound or handcuffed.

Asked if the students were armed, the Foreign Ministry spokesman said he had heard no reports that they were.

He said a Scandinavian ambassador in Tehran would act as a mediator “to try to convince the students to get out of the compound.” He reported an Iranian Moslem religious leader also was trying to talk the invaders into leaving.

The spokesman, who asked not to be named, said he was unsure of the identities of the two mediators.

The State Department said in Washington the Iranian government had “given assurances that our people being held are safe and well.”

Tehran Radio said the Marines and other “mercenaries” — not further identified — were safe in a room and “No violent action has been taken against them.”

An official at the British Embassy, reached by phone from London, said it appeared “as though the hostages are having to spend the night in the basement. There is no knowing how long they are going to be held.”

A mass of Iranian protesters is held back from the gates of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran.

A mass of Iranian protesters is held back from the gates of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran. – Associated Press/Nov. 5, 1979

The Foreign Ministry spokesman said that after the takeover thousands of other Iranians converged on the spacious embassy compound, on a major avenue in central Tehran, and milled around outside, shouting anti-American slogans.

Just hours after the embassy invasion, seven demonstrators chained themselves inside the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to protest the ousted Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s presence in New York, where he is hospitalized for cancer treatment. After 3 1/2 hours authorities cut the chains and took them into custody.

Pahlavi went to New York last month on a special medical visa and underwent gallbladder surgery and testing. Doctors recommended he stay in the United States for six months to a year for drug treatment of his cancer. He fled Iran in January and later took up residence in Mexico.

The Tehran broadcasts, some not clearly received, said the students were motivated by a “message” from the leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The Iranian Embassy in Washington released a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry in Tehran after the takeover accusing the United States of engaging in an “imperialist plot” to reinstate the former monarch. Iranian officials have claimed the deposed ruler is faking illness.

“The action taken today by a group of our countrymen reflects the natural feeling of the Iranian nation towards the U.S. government’s disregard” of an official Iranian protest of Pahlavi’s presence in New York, the statement said.

A crowd of Iranian women wearing the traditional chador join an anti-U. S. protest in Tehran, Iran.

A crowd of Iranian women wearing the traditional chador join an anti-U. S. protest in Tehran, Iran. – Associated Press/Nov. 5, 1979

It said the U.S. government ignored the protest and refused to allow two Iranian doctors living in the United States to examine the shah, who could have been treated in Mexico or another country.

“The people of Iran were extremely concerned about any relocation and activities of the shah and … would consider the shah’s illness a pretext for his going to the United States in order to have access to better activities against the Islamic Revolution in Iran,” the statement said.

State Department spokesman Touhy said the U.S. charge d’affaires in Tehran, Bruce Laingen, and two other American officials were at the Foreign Ministry at the time the embassy was seized, and had contacted Iranian Foreign Minister Ibrahim Yazdi. No U.S. ambassador currently is assigned to Tehran.

Touhy said Laingen remained at the ministry, negotiating with officials there, and negotiations were not being conducted with the embassy invaders. He said families of U.S. personnel held in the embassy were being advised that the hostages had not been harmed. He did not release any names of the Americans.

The State Department had issued a statement earlier, saying Laingen “had been given assurances by the Iranian government that it will do its best to resolve the matter satisfactorily. We appreciate the efforts of the Iranian government.”

An Iranian child holds a photo showing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in front of the entrance of the U.S. Embassy on the third day of the occupation of the building by Iranian students.

An Iranian child holds a photo showing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in front of the entrance of the U.S. Embassy on the third day of the occupation of the building by Iranian students. – Associated Press/Nov. 6, 1979

This was the second time the embassy has been taken over since the revolution. Gunmen believed to be renegade revolutionaries invaded the embassy last Feb. 14, killing one Iranian and taking 101 hostages, including Ambassador William Sullivan and 19 Marine guards. Pro-Khomeini forces drove the insurgents from the badly damaged compound after 3 1/2 hours.

A Baghdad Radio broadcast reported that Iraq had lodged a strong protest with Iran over what was described as an attack on the Iraqi Embassy in Tehran Saturday and the abduction of four persons. The Khomeini regime accuses Iraq of aiding autonomy-seeking minorities in Iran.

SOURCE: https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20191104/40-years-ago-today-iran-students-seize-us-embassy-in-tehran

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment