Today's Society is Evil Because It No Longer Wears Hats

It's too bad the bogeyman satan didn't totally take down Apostle Malm's blog yesterday in order to stop the asinine silliness in legalistic bullshit he has been coming up with lately.

His constant harping about hats for women and men is getting ridiculous.  As long as he wants to continue in this legalistic BS, I will continue to point out his silliness.

Hats for men are symbols of power and authority, hats for women are a sign you are chaste and under authority of a man (and men in general) and that you know your place in the food chain.

In a similar manner the custom in Israel of covering the heads of women was used by the apostle Paul as an allegory of spiritual things.  We cannot understand the meaning of 1 Cor 11 unless we understand something of this custom in Israel.
COURTESY, MANNERS AND CUSTOM

Until very recently it was the custom for men to wear hats while outside.  When the entered a home or business they removed their hats out of respect for the household or establishment and it was considered an insult for a man not to remove his hat on entering.  It was also common courtesy for a gentleman to tip or lift his hat upon meeting ladies, this was also good manners and common courtesy.  Gentlemen ALWAYS removed their hats while praying or in the presence of god or that considered Holy.  This was done as a show of RESPECT to God and the Holy.

Ladies especially married ladies usually wore hats which would be worn both inside and outside.  This was a token that they were chaste and faithful to their husbands, a token of the power [authority] of their husbands and their faithful submission to their husbands. To be properly dressed would include a modest garment including some type of hat or head covering.

These customs of proper modest dress including head wear were almost universal in the western world until about WW1 when national mores began to loosen and change.  it is now at the point that such considerations have been long forgotten.  I recently entered a restaurant only to see several men eating with their hats on.  This is an incredably rude and uncouth, mannerless thing to do; yet these folks were quite probably just ignorant of the basics of good manners and courtesy.

Today we are living in the most wicked period in human history and we are so enured to it and the evils are so commonplace that we go about blissfully unaware of the overspreading of our abominations. 

If the Apostle Malm wants to talk about abominations in the world he needs to start with the Churches of God and the evil that exists in it first!  Oh wait, he is, that's why hats for men and women are a first step in obedience.

(Malm's interpretation is in black, scriptures in red)

 Women should cover their heads in front of their men as a sign of submission because you are less than.

 In Israel a woman who uncovers her head symbolically removes herself from the authority of her husband and is as an adulteress.  For that reason a woman accused of adultery is to uncover her head at her trial of loyalty.

In Israel married women specifically covered their heads to prevent men other than their husbands from lusting after their beauty revealed in  the glory of their hair. A married woman who went out with her head uncovered was considered promiscuous.

⁵But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. If a woman has her head uncovered she is considered promiscuous by the custom of Israel.  For having her head uncovered is a dishonour to her husband and is the same as broadcasting that she refuses the authority of her own husband; which means that she also refuses the authority of his head, even Christ and the Father.

⁶For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. If a woman refuses to cover her head, then let her head be shaved or her hair cropped close.  This cannot mean that the hair is the covering since if she had hair and it were the covering spoken of; why would Paul command that the hair be shaved off?

In Malm's world and in all legalistic fundamentalist cults, sects, and religions, women are relegated to the dung heap as unworthy, less than, potential wanton hussies, all the while they are bombarded by the fact that that the men are created in the glorious, majestic, powerful image of God.

⁷For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: the husband is a type of Christ who will become the husband of the New Covenant. but the woman is the glory of the man. The woman is to cover her head as a symbol that she is under the power or authority of her husband and of his head, Christ and the Father.  For the man symbolizes Christ as the husband of spiritual Israel.

¹³Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? People of Israel; whose custom is that an uncovered woman is a promiscuous person and an unfaithful wife; is it right that a woman come before God with the attire of a rebellious wife?

Apostle Malm has discovered the root of ALL the problems in the Churches of God.  You rebellious fools who do not wear hats are the cause of ALL the problems in the Churches of God.

Look at the state of the church today!  Why are we in such a state?  Because we lack God’s spirit, and we lack God’s spirit because we do not obey him with zeal and a whole heart; instead every group leader is doing what is right in his own eyes.  Why do we not obey?  Because we lack that basic of love for God called

R E S P E C T.  We neither love him enough to fully obey him, nor do we respect him enough to obey his Word!

I had thought that this head covering was a small thing and after more study I find that is goes to the very basics of the problem in the COGs; Personal P R I D E and a lack of respect for God!

So a word of warning to all you ladies out there.  Unless you wear your hat to church for prayer and around your husband, you will turn into a wanton hussie like this:

Satan Attacks End Time Prophet/Apostle Malm's Blog

ANNONCEMENTS: Last evening the site was hacked and a Roman Catholic article in Polish was published and remained on this site for about one hour.  I thank those who brought this to my attention and as I was checking my email last evening this was caught and dealt with almost immediately.  Your prayers are needed and requested.  AS the message gets stronger and stronger, the ACCUSER will become more and more active.

 

The Genographic Project

For those interested in discovering your British Israel roots that determine you are an heir to the throne of England.........or to establish your legitimacy as an end-time prophet through your royal blood line from David.........

 

The Genographic Project 

Dennis On: Sanctified Ignorance

Sanctified Ignorance is Still Ignorant

We all have our stories of how we got here and who we are in the universe. Most stories told by every culture point out the unique origins of that culture, like as not, springing directly from that particular cave or mountain in distant and mysterious times in the past. When the National Geographic Genographic research team gently informed aboriginal Australians of their African origins, according to the DNA evidence, the Elders reacted with a simple "no, we originated here and maybe they came from us." Comforting and upholding of ancient aboriginal beliefs, but not scientifically true. You could feel the tension this new information brought into the cultural beliefs that for so long had encouraged and sustained them. I doubt they will change their understanding of themselves with this bit of scientific information.

A similar reaction occurred when the team informed the Navajo in the Americas of their DNA origins linking them to a still existent people in Siberia. The immediate reaction was understandably defensive for Navajo origin stories which had them always living in the Four Corners area of the now United States. In time, I believe they agreed that there was room for both the science and the tradition and, in this case, both maintained their truths on tribal origins. But the science was more literally correct. The uneasiness was palpable.

And now the Indigenous People's Council on Biocolonialism, the IPCB is raising even more concerns about the effect this knowledge will have on belief systems of indigenous peoples. For better or worse, "Indigenous peoples have consistently voiced their opposition to this type of research because it breaches cultural values, bioethical standards and human rights law. The IPCB believes the project is being undertaken at the expense of indigenous peoples. Debra Harry, the organization's executive director, writes on their website, "It is quite likely this project will advance new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowledge of ourselves. There can be no claim as to which understanding is correct, and will result in a clash of knowledge systems. Moreover, there could be serious political implications that result from a so-called "scientific" assertion that indigenous peoples are not "indigenous" to their territories, but instead are recent migrants from some other place. This cuts at the heart of the rights of indigenous peoples, which are based upon our collective, inherent right of self-determination as peoples, under international human rights law." A standard ethical requirement in human research is that the benefits must equal the risk. The IPCB believes that in this type of research, there will be no benefit to indigenous peoples, yet the research creates substantial risk for the individuals and peoples affected."

It is this advancement of "new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowlege of ourselves," that seems to be so difficult for humans to handle. Truth is still true though denied by all. In such defensiveness science always get's called "science so called" and even does in the Bible as "Science, falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20). This phrase is always used when the science is really not false, but it is threatening to sincerely held beliefs. I don't like someone knocking the nose off my idols any more than the next guy, but that's progress, painful and ever moving forward. The Bible makes fun of learning at times in this nervousness over knowledge when it mocks those who are "ever learning, but never able to come the knowledge of the truth" (II Tim. 3:7), to which I say, at least they keep trying and even Jesus is reported to have said, "seek and ye shall find." Of course he meant spiritually but it's good advice in all endeavors too.

The moment you believe you have it, you've lost it.

We all have our origin stories that, in time, will probably prove to not be true, at least not literally. We live in an age where even most Christians realize that the origin stories of mankind in the Garden of Eden, through a first set of parents, Adam and Eve, are not literally true. The problem with believing that is that much of the doctrine in the New Testament requires the story of the first Adam and Eve to be literally true as they lead to such literally true doctrines as the role of women in the church, why women have babies painfully, Jesus being the "Second Adam" and the Doctrine of Original Sin. All of these beliefs and teachings are destroyed by the Genesis story not being literally true.  Scientific truth has implications for Biblical origin stories.

If there was no real Eve, or Adam whose fault this wasn't ;) who really caused all of mankind to fall into original sin, for which we all must repent etc, then there is no need of repenting of that which never happened or of needing a Savior in the way portrayed in the New Testament. Stories and ideas have implications to say the least. Many Christians think it is ok NOT to believe in things being literally true. But that has incredible implications for other things they think they believe but dont' realize the connection and contradictions their position causes theologically. Plainly, if there was no literal Genesis like creation of mankind and fall into sin, and it is shown to not be true by good science, the implications are staggering in how we will have to change our views. Frankly most won't but will, as always, attack the messenger and burn the message, or just burn both.

Actually, a simple cheek swab was all it took for me to find out my own amazing DNA trip out of Africa 70,000 years ago. Perhaps this is done for some reason somewhere, but for the Genome project, this fear is very unfounded. Our genetic history is easily taken from the inside of our mouths. Every cell contains the whole.
Simply speaking, it appears that ALL modern humans originated in and then spread out from Africa within the last 100,000 years or less. What a great story to read at Clan meetings! All the "differences" we see in humans are adaptations we made along the way in our trek from there to Europe, Asia and the Americas. Good science gives us good explanations, always subject to new information about this process.

Indeed, we do need to insure the privacy of the individual if they wish it and we need to be sensitive to the process that others go through when they are faced with the implications of such information and research. It takes time to accept change and as stated, many won't, but rather will just become angry and defensive. We see this all the time in the attacks Christian literalists launch into from their pulpits when new knowledge threatens old ideas.
It's funny, in my previous church affiliation there was a belief that always annoyed me scientifically. It was the belief, now long discredited, that the Lost Tribes of Israel turned up as the powerful nations of Europe, The British Empire and of course, America. I was Dutch, so that clearly put me in the Tribe of Zebulun, according to the theory. I never gave a sermon on this topic! However, my DNA shows I made no such trip through the middle east to become an Israelite and go on into Europe. Rather it shows a long trip through Iran, Iraq the various "Beckastans" on out onto the steppes of Asia and then one big swing into Europe as Cro-Magnon and then into France, Holland and England in much more recent times. That British-Israelism idea is bunk and DNA testing will show it to be so. That particular idea is racist if ever there was one.

The historical speculations of the Book of Mormon on race origins have been destroyed by DNA testing.  Native Americans are Siberian in origins for the most part and not Middle Eastern from the Levant.  Of course, this will not stop the spread of Mormonism but it does leave them with some difficult problems to explain. Don't worry, the truth of the matter won't stop that Church anymore than it has stopped others.  The book will no doubt become "spiritual truth" instead of literal truth at some point in the future and continue to deceive.

So good science is not "science, falsely so called" or "so called science." Yes, it has implications for theologians and Christians but believing something is true never makes it really true and we need to always have a love of discovery. Sorry to say, it is usually the reactions to new information by those most threatened by it that plunges our world into chaos.

Dennis C. Diehl

DenniscDiehl@aol.com