Wiccan Witches: No Power in Uncut Hair

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Is this the kettle calling the pot black????....lol I seem to remember DA being pretty critical of LS for using the occult to back up/prove his teachings.....just saying.

Your statement doesn't make sense. Daniel is refuting the source used by LS and others. That would be like someone saying that Britannica has an entry that says "dogs like carrots because carrots give them special powers." If I go look it up in Britannica, find the entry to be nonexistent, and then say so--that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. That's calling someone out on a lie.

Now, it's possible that LS did read that somewhere. I'm not willing to say that he lied about reading the information. I just think his sources aren't well-checked, and that sometimes people will latch onto anything that supports their doctrine, reliable or not.

[Elizabeth]

Dan,

Do you know if any one has asked or if they themselves (Stoneking & Janaiski) said what their source is for satanic practices?

Where do they get the "witches even know" theory from?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Your statement doesn't make sense. Daniel is refuting the source used by LS and others. That would be like someone saying that Britannica has an entry that says "dogs like carrots because carrots give them special powers." If I go look it up in Britannica, find the entry to be nonexistent, and then say so--that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. That's calling someone out on a lie.

Now, it's possible that LS did read that somewhere. I'm not willing to say that he lied about reading the information. I just think his sources aren't well-checked, and that sometimes people will latch onto anything that supports their doctrine, reliable or not.

I do not think it is a question of him outright dishonest either, but neither do I think it has to do with his sources (not much anyways). I simply believe that LS is the type of personality to make HUGE exaggerations when hearing something that seems to confirm what he personally believes and then believe his own exaggeration as 100% fact as if he is hearing them as yet another official source. Most of his stories seem to fall into this category, but am thinking specifically about his island of Fiji tale about the nation being saved (or saved from some form of calamity) because the women stopped cutting their hair.

[MrsMcD]

Originally Posted by DAII

I cut my hair about every 3 weeks ... but I have instructed my wife to start growing out her hair ... for added protection.

Let me know how that works out for you (and her).

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

Dan,

Do you know if any one has asked or if they themselves (Stoneking & Janaiski) said what their source is for satanic practices?

Where do they get the "witches even know" theory from?

This was posted here before - - a little history of where it came from.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=14162

[A.W. Bowman]

This whole hair thing is the result of a few men getting together, I am sure with honorable motives, with the idea of developing sound biblical doctrine by which to guide the church.

Unfortunately, the prevailing opinions were lacking in understanding of the scripture that they were attempting to define, That is, there is a notable lack of understanding expressed in today's hair doctrine due to the original doctrine formation was lacking in language, local customs (culture/society), history, and a historical religious context within which to establish the 'long hair' doctrinal content. For example, the term 'uncut' does not even show up in the New Testament (that is an added refinement to scripture by men), but 'long hair' does. Yet, after almost a hundred years, what started out as a good idea has resulted in our being saddled with still another religious tradition, thinking that now we are somehow more approved of God (and just as importantly, the angles too) than our neighbors. Matthew 23 always comes to mind in these kinds of discussions.

Even so, like everything else that we do, the truth of any situation lies in one's motivation. If an act that is approved of God (or not condemned in scripture) is done for the glory of God and is performed in the name of Jesus, then what's the harm? Nothing! And, the person performing the act is engaged in a service of worship. The 'problem' comes when such acts are then imposed on others in order to obtain the approval of men - as if their approval is required before one can be 'approved' of God, i.e. the individual act of honor and worship now becomes a 'God given mandate' in order to obtain His personal approval, and even required by rest of the heavenly host for their acceptance.

As to the few who were not allow to have a razor touch their heads, that is another subject.