Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Is cohabitation marriage in the Bible; and when does grace end?

















Is cohabitation marriage in the Bible, and when does grace end? We will start by defining marriage, do some horizontal studies and consider some customs before we apply the principle to our context. Then we will show when grace takes leave.


When God created Adam, he told him he needed a helpmeet (Gen 2:18). Why help meet? Because God has given him the garden to take care of. Now He needs someone to help him in that field, and that person was not among animals (Gen 2:20), so God made a woman (Gen 2:21 -23). Thenceforth, the man will leave his mother and father and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (Gen 2:24).


So then, does God sanction cohabitation, after all the mere definition of marriage means cohabitation? The mistake many people make is that, they end on this definition of marriage. The word marriage has about four definitions. It means cohabitation or dwell together as used in Ex 21:10. In this passage, it refers to the institution. Then it could mean clear or agree or matching as used in Ps 78:63. It could also mean custom or act as used in Matt 22:30, and I Cor 7:38. In our context, we are talking about the institution, which means cohabitation.

To have a good interpretation, we must do some horizontal studies by asking some questions. If Marriage is mere cohabitation, then why does God call some sex adultery (Mt 5:27 -28), fornication (Jn 8:41) or sin (I Cor 6:18 -20) in plain language? As such, we have to go back to some customs especially the Jewish custom to arrive at our conclusion.


In Israel, for anything to be considered marriage, parents must approve it (Gen 21:8). It was on that ground that parents were paid the dowry or bride price; price for a wife (Gen 34:12; Ex 22:17; I Sam 18:25; Deut 22:29). At times, the bride's father made the gifts or paid the price (Joshua 15:125-19; I kings 9:16). After the bride price has been paid, or the gifts given, then there was a ceremony which was organized by the bride’s family (Gen 29:22). It was on this basis that Jesus attended the one in Cana where he turned water into wine (Jn 2:10). At times, the party could also be organized by the groom’s family too (Judges 14:10). The climax of the ceremony came with the pronouncement of the benediction (Gen 26:60; 28:1-4). In every marriage ceremony, there must be witnesses (Ruth 4:1-11, I Sam 8:1-3). Considering the custom, we realize that the two people had to come before the council and even disvirgin the girl with a white cloth placed underneath to collect the blood that will drop out from breaking the hymen ( Deut 22:13-21). Therefore, that again annuls the existence of elopements or mere cohabitation. Yet, shall we then just apply the Jewish tradition? Not at all!

Considering that no theological statement was made in a cultural vacuum, we then want to assimilate the principle of custom approval to our situation. For instance, a relationship is considered marriage in the US when the two have signed papers in court or have lived in a situation of lawful Common Law Marriage (CLM). Anything short of that is illicit relation. Thus, boyfriend and girlfriend having sex or living together is sin. Notwithstanding, CLM is practiced only in 11 States in the US . In those states where CLM is accepted, I believe God accepts it too because the law of the land accepts it and the concept is morally sustained. The place of the church is the same token of the benediction that took place, yet the benediction was based on the belief that these same people making those pronouncements were worthy of them.


In Africa, you finish with the customary marriage before you go to the court, then finally the church, before you start to consummate your marriage. In that case, if you have signed the court papers without even celebrating it in church, you have the divine approval to “enjoy”.


Therefore, because we are and must be subjected to the law of the land if it agrees with the scripture (Rom 13:1-4), which this one does, then we must respect the fact that marriage can only be considered when both parties have a marriage certificate.


However, if we do sin in fornication when non-Christians, the Bible says there is forgiveness because it is considered a time of ignorance (Acts 17:30) for which the blood of Jesus pre and post blots out (Eph 1:7; 2:13, Col 1:20; Heb 9:12). But if we fall in sin, and we confess, God will forgive us (Prov 28:13; I John 1:9). Nonetheless, as you know, cohabitation is not falling in sin; it is practicing sin. That is living in sin! Consequently, grace is not tantamount to perpetual sinning (Rom 6:1-2; Heb 10:29). As such, there is no longer any sacrifice for perpetual sin (Heb 10:26) because we will be crucifying the son of God the second time. To obtain forgiveness for that sin, the perpetrators must break up.


When we believe, it means we are dieing to sin and then resurrecting to a newness of life (Rom 6:4-6). That means, we have to bring forth fruits worthy of our confession. The fruits of this confession are love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, self control and perseverance (Gal 5:22-23); thereby, excluding the works of the flesh which include illicit sex because them who practice (not fall into) illicit sex will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21).

The concept of saved by grace (Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9) does not negate a righteous living, for we are called Christians (Acts 11:26); which means little Christ. Therefore, we are representing Christ when we are called ambassadors of Christ (2 Cor 5:20). As Ambassadors, the code of conduct obliges us to be an example and cohabitation is not a good example for anyone representing Christ.



Until then, let us live to the honor of God our maker.



Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

What is wrong with wine?


The Bible and Alcohol
Part 1


Introduction
Today even 12 year olds in some countries buy alcohol beverages. The law on the legal drinking age varies from one country to another. Beer is increasing by 150% and drinks by 40 %; meanwhile, the population is increasing by only 45%. Alcohol consumptions stagnating and even dropping in industrialized countries, but it is skyrocketing in developing countries of Latin America, Asia and Africa where new brands of beers are coming out almost every year. It is predicted that in 20 years, the production of beer will grow by 200% in Latin America, 400% in Africa, and 500% in Asia.

Alcohol is used differently in both worlds. In the developed world, alcohol is generally used for comfort; meanwhile, in the poor countries, it is generally used to alleviate misery. Yet, it affects all levels of the society whereby many have been addicted. Again, the difference in developed countries with dealing with the problems is dissimilar from those of the underdeveloped countries. The rich countries like Germany put alcoholics on benefits because they consider it a disease that has handicapped and made them non-functional. Whereas, their counterparts in the poor countries have name-calling, and shame as their wage. It would be preferable for someone to be an alcoholic in the western world because he or she will earn benefits than to be one in Africa where you will sleep in the gutter a couple of times and be singing “ who slept with your mother? It’s me!”

A one-time survey confirmed that acoholisation is principally a masculine business. More than one-half of women do not drink, but 90% of them take at most two bottles a day. On the other hand, in Germany, smoking seems the handiwork of the women. Surveys have also revealed that 42% of great toxicomans started with marijuana, and 29% by alcoholic drunkenness. All surveys from Montreal review show that youths use and abuse beer or drinks. Opinion polls show half of 12-19 years have consumed alcohol and at least once each month or once the last month preceding the survey. According to another study, ½ of adolescents between 15-17 years were excessively drinkers or dependants, 40% were social drinkers, and only ¼ abstinents. According to a renowned psychiatrist, alcoholism is the source of drug leading to toxicommania. This shows how alcohol is a human problem and must be treated with urgency.

I believe that neither prohibition nor abstinence of  any sort will be the solution because even things that are illegal are still being used. I believe people should be set face to face with the facts and truth about alcoholism. That’s the raison d’etre of this lesson.

Definition and etymology
In Israel and the Bible, there were three types of wines.
1) New wine/ tiros/ (Hebrew) Gleukos (Greek). Acts 2:13; Jn 2:3. It was called new wine because it was sweet and unfermented as such had a low percentage of alcohol. That means it was still alcoholic. New wine was the first drippings of the juice before the winepress was trodden. This is the same wine that Jesus made from water. Take note of the name and type.


2) Wine /yayin/ (Hebrew) /Oinos/ (Greek) Prov. 20:1. This type of wine was gotten from trodding the chaffs from the wine press and which could stay or ferment for some days. This was called at times “trodden wine” because it was tapped from winepress and after the wine has been extracted then the chaffs from the winepress were trodden upon to produce wine. It is similar to the way Manyu people made palm oil in the early 70s and late 80s.

3) Strong drink /sekar/ Hebrew and /sikera/ (Greek) Lk. 1:15. This was wine that has been distilled through a local brewery method and could be termed today odontol, Arki, Gin or liqueur.


Part 2 Disadvantages of heavy drinking
 
1) Expenditures without income.
In the Western countries, almost 25 billion dollars are spent on alcoholic drinks. 20 Billions registered as a lost due to the consumption of alcohol. There are also about 95 or more millions drinkers of alcohol below the age of 15.

2) Cause of crime
Half of crimes including broken homes, ¼ of suicide cases, and half of road accidents are caused by heavy alcoholic drinking.

3) Destroys and stagnates input.
Statistics show that 175,000 people absent from their job sites as a consequences of alcohol. Drinkers experience too many job side accidents more than abstinents (non drinkers).

4) Physiological damage
After drinking alcohol moderately, we register a drop in our vision and dexterity in our reflexes. That means people are telling lies when they say that alcohol stimulates and boosts the body heat. Alcohol also deteriorates the cell of our bodies. This can cause liver cirrhoses and excessive weight. It relaxes the blood vessels in the epidermis thereby reducing the heat in our bodies.

In considering some of the above effects, people find it wise to say that the Bible objects to the drinking of alcohol. I will present a couple of those verses and their interpretations. The question is why did God accept the use of alcohol knowing fully well of its effects?

The Bible mentions wine 200 times. Listen to me again: the Bible mentions wine 200 times. The usage varies from testament to testament. In the Old Testament (OT), we read that Melchizedek who was regarded as the prototype of Christ gave wine and bread to Abraham for tithes (Gen 14:18). Israelites brought wine, and God accepted it as an offering (Num 18:12). God commanded them to buy wine (Deut. 14:26). Solomon tells us that God blessed them with wine (Prov. 3:10). There are various reasons why people in the OT used wine. They used wine because wine made the heart of man merry (Ps.104:5) and brought merriment in feasts (Eccl. 10:19). One quick thought arises here. If wine per se was bad, then God will not ask anybody to touch, drink or offer it. Why has He not authorized any form of witchcraft or illicit sex?

The role of the wine taster (Gen 40:1-3; Neh 2:1). He was a man trusted by pharaoh who could be like a protocol officer today. The wine taster would tastes all the king’s food and drinks to see if it was poisoned before it was given to him. We do not see that same practice in the New Testament (NT). However, the usage of wine in the NT differs a bit from that of the OT in that it was used more than just for recreational reasons. Wine was used for merriment (Jn 2:1-10) too. It was used for didacticism (Mt. 9:17). It was used for socialization (Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:34). Here again is very troubling because the Master Jesus is accused of it by his own personal inference. It even goes further when Jesus calls himself a winebibber in the words of the Pharisees and scribes. Wine was also used as medicine for the stomach (5:23). Now a quick question. Could and would the apostle Paul ask another Christian to commit fornication for their back pain?

Among the 200 verses mentioning wine, only one cautions against drinking wine. However, I will treat the most frequently quoted verses against the consumption of alcohol. As such, we would conduct a serious exegesis on some of those polemical verses. Remember that to perform a good hermeneutics, one has to do a proper exegesis and horizontal studies while scanning the language and culture. That is what we call dynamic equivalence and an expository teaching. So slowly let’s go!

,Part 3
1) Leviticus 10:9-10
And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying, 9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: 10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; 11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

Neither the priests nor their descendants could drink wine or liquor when they were going into the Tabernacle in order to prevent their senses from being dulled as they offered sacrifices or taught the people. Nothing is said of prohibiting them alcohol in their daily life. More so, this was a religious law and not a moral law. Let me quickly show the difference between the two. The difference between the Ten Commandments which we generally call Moral law and Mosaic Law (religious, ceremonial and civil) is that, the moral law was given to Moses as a microcosm of Man. Meanwhile, the Mosaic Law was given to Moses as a microcosm of Israel. Therefore, the Mosaic Law bound a given people and culture. It loses its strength when transcending other cultures. In case of assimilation, it becomes ethnocentric, that could lead to acculturation of the adopter. For that reason, proper hermeneutics beckons a thorough exegesis. For example, an American woman who delivers a male child does no more become unclean because it was given to Jewish women alone (Lev. 12:2) and not all women on earth, whereas the injunction not to kill is for both Jews and Gentiles. More so, Moral Law is not relative whereas Mosaic Law is. In addition, considering that moral law is part of God, it does not abrogate (Mt 5:17-19) meanwhile, Mosaic Law does because each individual must enter into covenant with God (Mt 22:32).

No doubt with the death of Christ, all Christians become priests and enter into the holy of holies daily. Yet, it is because of the His death that, the ceremonial law was abolished. As such, we are no more under ceremonial laws like this one. Our worship is no more physical into the spiritual but spiritually direct. If we bring back this same principle, then we have to bring back that of women not appearing before the Lord when they were seeing their periods. You don’t want that; do you?

This is the only verse where the Bible cautions against drinking alcohol and it was just for the time they were going into the tabernacle. Meaning when they were not involved with religious activities they could drink.


Part 4
2) Jeremiah 35:1-5 ( sons of the rechabites)

The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, 2 Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. 3 Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites; 4 And I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door: 5 And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine.

This was a tribe that existed since the time of Moses. They adhered to ascetism through out their expeditions. They were a group of Arabs among refugees from neighboring country who sought asylum within the walls of Jerusalem. They believed wholeheartedly to the doctrines of Jonadab some 300 years ago on abstinence of wine. The main idea was that as pilgrims they should not be given to wine less they strike their roots too deep and forget their way back home. While the rest of the nation was breaking the covenant of commitment, they remained faithful and steadfast to theirs. It had little or nothing to do with the evil of wine. It was because of their vision and assignment.

In this passage, the people took upon themselves to maintain their tradition. It was not God ordained or to an extent the Bible is mute.

3) Habakkuk 2:15)
Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

Here the condemnation was on Babylonian violence. She deceived her neighbors with wine, stripped them of all their wealth which is the same like individuals who gave people wine, made them drunk so that they can take advantage of them sexually. An example is that of Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:33). Remember the evil in this verse is on the intention and not the subject.


Numbers 6:4-5
All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk? 5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. Abstinence from wine by the Nazarite was for clarity and differentiation when engaged in the service of the Lord. It was for those who made the vow to serve the Lord as liberators. The extension to grape products would symbolize all sensual enjoyments by which holiness could be impaired. Today it would be staying away from any external stimulation other than the Holy Spirit.

N.B. Questions or challenges only after part 5
PA Hamilton Ayuk


Part 5
Prov 20:1; 23:20; 31:4-7’
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: 5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. 6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. 7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

In all three passages, phrases like “deceived thereby is not wise, winebibber, drunkard shall come to poverty, drink to forget the law”, all denote abuse or drunkenness and not mere drinking wine per se. As you very well know, strong drink will influence people with immediate promises of happiness and in an instant turns to mock at them in their behaviors or even making them slaves in their misery. It may promise strength for the arm, joy for the heart, brilliance for the mind but those promises are not kept and the end is impotence, misery and imbecility.

According to the mother of Lemuel, drunkenness might be understandable among unbelievers who are on the brink of death but it is inexcusable for national leaders because alcohol clouds the mind and can lead to injustice and poor decision. We must recall that wine was a form of soporific or anesthesia in their days. Leaders have better things to do than anesthetize themselves with alcohol. In direct reference, the logic that since man cannot control himself when he drinks a glass of wine, alcohol beverages should then be banned is really pretentious and unfounded. Despite the many case of adultery, fornication, no one has suggested the banning of sex. Despite the numerous cases against McDonald for obesity, no one has suggested the prohibition of eating.

In 2004, the US accused Mexico for helping infiltrate drugs into their country. The Mexican president replied with “tell your people to curb their appetite”. If each person would curb his or her appetite then, the problem of excess will never exist. We have fought cases of counterfeits and yet the department of treasury has never suggested the banning of money. There are many false churches and doctrines in the world yet we have not campaigned to ban the existence of churches. Don’t you think, the best way to cure the existence of false doctrines and churches would be to ban the existence of churches entirely? Don’t you think the solution to counterfeits would be to stop using money entirely? Or may be the solution to lack of proper governments in most African countries would be to barn all governments entirely.

I believe in the scriptures that says do not eat if your brother will stumble “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom. 14:21). However, he has to grow up. I am conscious all is permitted and not all is useful (I Cor. 6:12; 10:23-24) because we want to do everything for the glory of God (I Cor 10:31). Paul admonishes the Christians to be filled with the Holy Spirit and not be drunk (Eph. 5:18). Take note of the word drunk. It is not drink. Therefore, if anyone should abstain from alcohol their argument should be that either it is not good for their system or they don’t like it but not because the Bible interdicts it.

Until then, wine per se is not the problem but drunkenness is.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

15/09/98

Miss South Carolina


Miss South Carolina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53dAexGUNlc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaN6Rx8X6_I&mode=related&search
“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because uh some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for”. (Lauren Caitlin Upton)


As I read her quote over and over again, I can conclude that she was not ready for the question. It could also be due to stage fright or some emotional concern that popped up immediately she was asked the question. It is far from the “Blondes are Dumb” stigma the media is trying to sell to the public.

I just don’t think Lauren Caitlin Upton: Miss Teen South Carolina should be held to such contempt. I have preached since when I was twenty in front of large and small crowds, but there are times when even small crowds trouble me. She was not trained as a public speaker, was not ready for a geography question and I think she did just fine. I believe people should get a life and leave the young woman to try her hands out in a field she is gifted. Aren’t her physiognomy and catwalk good enough to entertain them? Society is becoming more and more very cruel that people whet their appetites with a special schadenfreude.
Look at the America’s most funny videos they are mostly accidents: men hitting their balls, people falling from houses and hitting their heads on poles or something that one would have just been thankful to God for keeping them alive again. That is what makes people laugh; they laugh and even select the most funny among those accident videos. Wow!

I am appalled at the publicity they are giving to her mistake.
Hey, Lauren, keep it up but let this give you the impetus to learn about the world around you.

Until then, I wish you the best in your undertaking.


Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

Monday, August 27, 2007

Does God condemn Polygamy?




Does God condemn polygamy?


Definition

Polygamy is a form of matrimony. It is difficult to understand the fear of most western women and even Africarinas (African woman living abroad) on polygamy. Africans did not decide to practice polygamy; it was their way of life. They were born in it; it was, and it is their culture. Every people are born with a culture, although cultures could be picked along the line of migration. My paternal great grandfather had - wives while my maternal grandfather had- wives. In Cameroon, late Mongo Faya had 101 wives. He did not die from marrying many wives though. Late King Sobhouza II- of Swaziland who died at age 83 had 120 wives and 280 concubines. The question today is does God approve or condemn polygamy? Would a polygamist go to heaven? Should he or she hold a church position?

Types of Polygamy
There are two types of polygamy; polygyny (a man married to many wives like in Utah, Africa and Latin America), and polyandry (a woman married to many husbands like in Asia). WM Branham advocated for polygyny because he believed authority rested with men than women, and that women were more a property of the man when you consider that the Bible seems to place a woman amongst the properties of a man (Num 32:26; I kings 20: 5). It is difficult to prove that the scripture is against polygamy, although it puts it in an undesirable position to be practiced.
The doctrine of one wife to one man (Gen 2:24) is the main base on which we vouch for monogamy. In that era, humanity had not yet fallen from grace. Yet unlike murder, idolatry, covetousness, stealing, adultery and other vices that God condemns, He does not condemn polygamy. If he does not condemn it; why and how can it be wrong? After all, polygamy is not illicit sex; fornication, digamy, bigamy, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, rape and incest are.

Causes of Polygyny in Africa

Polygamy first found its place in the African society due to the many men who died in inter-tribal wars, thereby leaving behind many women. It was befitting for one man to marry many women to provide for their needs. Then the advent of slavery helped to enforce it because many men were taken away and many women left behind. The scarcity of men was a great factor encouraging polygamy. Thus, polygyny has the interest of the woman economically and romantically. Do not forget that the modern woman today does not buy into that philosophy because she can work and earn money, and romantically there are all sorts of toys for self indulgence and gratification. These things were scarcer than the tears of a cat in those days.
Some people argue that there is competition in a polygamous home. There was no competition per se, apart from the normal jealousy that exists between husband and wife. Jealousy exists in monogamous homes too. That is because jealousy is the work of the flesh and has little or nothing to do with many women.
In addition, polygamy was the practice of levirate marriages. When a man died, his brother inherited his wife to take care of her. At times, the man was already married and so because of tradition, he became a polygamist.
Another reason was the booty of war. Women that were seized from the vanquished tribes were brought to the victors’ village, so they became their wives. That is why most Africans are almost interrelated. They became their wives as spoils of war.
Polygamy also found its way the more because of unpaid debts. When a man could not pay his debt, he surrendered his wife or his daughter to the creditor, especially if she was beautiful. If he was married, he automatically becomes a polygamist.
Nowadays, polygyny is gaining grounds because of the stigma placed on being single. Women want to be called Mrs., even if they are fifth or sixth wive.
Mischievously too, it is a means to cuckold a rich fellow. If he has many wives, he will not be able to satisfy them emotional but is more than able economically and financially. Thus, it enables them to keep their indolent boyfriends by the side while they carry the Mrs. and reap enough food and drinks for their real lover from the polygamist. That means to some women nowadays, Polygyny is more a means to earn a living.
Another important reason was that there was a high infant mortality rate and children were used in doing most of the farm jobs. In certain cases, a woman with 10 children could lose 8 and only two survived. So the man needed many wives to have many children who were at the same time too the pride of the man.

Who started Polygamy (Lamech or Eve)?

Some people say Polygamy or polyandry was begun by Eve when she had “sex” with the serpent, but biblical calculus does not support the theory, considering that she first ate the fruit before giving it to her husband.
Secondly, the Bible describes the setting showing the woman far from the serpent. How would both have had sex without coming into contact?
Thirdly, the serpent told the woman that the reason why God did not want them to eat the fruit was because they will become as gods. If sex was the sin, then since humans have been having sex, the human race would have been plated with gods and goddesses. On the contrary, it is due to sex that people make the most stupid decisions up to killing another human being.
Fourthly, if the fruit was sex, then man would have been immortal. Yet, we have heard of people who have died while in action. As such, the fruit would not be sex. If the fruit was not sex, then Eve did not start polyandry because she loved only Adam (monogamy).
After the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden, the first person to take two wives: Adah and Zillah was Lamech (Gen 4:19). He did not do it for none of the reasons people advance but just because it is part of his sinful nature. The variety in culture is due to the initial fall of man .Else everything was made to be homogenous even up to language (Gen 11:1; Eccl 7:29). After his marriage, God does not condemn him nor does he condemn any polygamyist in the Bible.



The Pitfalls of Polygyny.


Does the Bible say polygamy is wrong like it says with digamy, adultery, homosexuality, fornication; in short illicit sex? If polygamy is a sin, then digamy is too. I believe digamy should be in the same infraction level with bigamy, swinging, phone sex and cohabitation. Polygyny in Africa and Latin American countries is not a crime. Are we going to interpret its sinfulness by applying the jurisprudence of the United States, thereby encouraging ethnocentric hermeneutics? Sin is not relative. In short, moral wrong is morally wrong, no matter the country. If polygamy is an accepted form of matrimony; whereby, the participants willfully and consciously sign for, then there is a problem quoting the laws of one country (US) as the standard law and making it perfect or superior to the laws of other states. If I don’t practice Polygyny and will never practice is because I don’t even see its importance and raison d’etre, but it is not because the Bible says so or a country pretends to be the scribe of the Bible or God’s Gendarme.
Some people contend that polygamy is more expensive because in those days the polygynist made provisions for his family: wives and kids to be self supporting. In terms of expenditure, the amount of debt owed by modern monogamous homes outweighs what the polygamous homes in those days owed. Other people say that polygyny is a manifestation of the flesh or lust of the flesh. The fact that a man has ten wives does not mean he has sex everyday. A man with one wife could even have sex ten times a day as we know.
Other people say that it will be difficult to manage the home. The Bible does not have a problem with homes where polygamy: polyandry or polygyny is practiced. In the case of polyandry, the first husband was usually the head of the household, so there was no problem. Knowing that I am an African, people always say “polygamy has brought many problems than homosexuality”. To them I say this: are the children in Downtown Atlanta who live in rodents’ infested and roaches-friendly communities from polygamous homes? Are the families in Alabama and New Orleans who are living in a Tanga Nord and Tanga Sud; segregated from benefiting from the educational and economic success of the US from polygamous homes? Polygamy like monogamy have their migraines but to prime them with the ills of the society is sheer provincialism to avoid rebuking a wayward compatriot attempting to permeate sodomy.
Polygyny was and is still a problem in the US due to the background of the founding fathers who were greatly influenced by their puritanism. This reminds me of the days of The Salem Witch Hunt. I am still to find where the Bible says marrying more than one wife is bad. 2 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6 do not make a polygnist deportment wrong. Just because someone is rebuking a behavior they consider wrong does not mean they are right. Their stance could be the error Paul was talking about. If a polygynist stays faithful to his wives, he will go to heaven. He is only deprived from holding a church office (I Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6), but he is not considered out of the heavenly race (Rom 10:9-10,13; Eph 2:8-9; Gal 2;16 ). The unfaithful monogamous homes where boyfriends and girlfriends are frequent are not better than the faithful polygynous homes. In the US where polygyny is illegal, it may be reasonable and biblical to say it should not be practiced for respect of authority, but it should neither be taken as a biblical position nor should be adopted or forced into the constitutions of other countries as the law of God. There are some unlawful behaviors that are not sin. For example in Atlanta it is unlawful to feed the homeless in the park. Is feeding a homeless man a sin (Mt 25:35)?
The passage in Ezekiel chapter 1 is a parable. Nonetheless, it still shows that God was and still is not against polygamy. God was against intermarriage between heathens and Christians. It is the same thing we see when Paul uses wine as a form of medicine. If wine was that bad why would God through Paul ask Timothy to use it to cure his stomach age? If polygamy was and is that immoral, God would not has used it for didactic purposes else we would be saying that God could as well ask an unmarried Christian to sleep with male prostitutes since it will regulate her hormone to give her a normal menstrual cycle.  If God cannot and did not say that, it is because inherently he disapproves of fornication. Consequently, by using the parable of a polygamist he implicitly approves it, albeit does not recommend it. There is a huge different between approving an act and recommending it or approving and recommending simultaneously. 
Whether the word only is used as an adverb (exclusive) or a correlative conjunction (except), it establishes a limit. The only place where there is limit is for those aspiring to be church leaders as in I Tim 3: 2,12. By citing the number one, Paul establishes the numerical limit, something he does not do with the Corinthians (I Cor 7:2). In Cor 7:2, the pronoun his own is used as a reflexive pronoun connoting possession. The subject is simultaneously the actor and the sufferer, both the subject and object at the same time. Consequently, in the latter passage rather than have a common woman as was the practice in the Temple of Aphrodite with temple virgins, he encouraged everyone to have each a wife or a husband and stop the sexual deviance of people going to pay money into the temple to sleep with the same woman that everyone has slept with. It had nothing to do with the delimitation of the number. One thing the church of Corinth faced was sexual impropriety and debauchery where the worship of Aphrodite made sex with temple virgins rampant and flagrant. The temple virgins were a communal possession. It was what Paul was decrying.
Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses for marrying Zipporah - an Ethiopian woman: black (Num 12:1). Their anger was due to racism not because Moses was married to many wives. Humanity and Christendom should worry more about racism than polygamy. If monogamy was the perfect matrimony, then there will be no divorce.
Solomon marrying 700 plus 300 concubines was a search for a perfect woman. The Bible does not attribute failed marriages to the practice of multiple wives. The condemnation is on having foreign women (I Kings 11:1; Deut 17:17; Neh 13:26; 2 Chr 1:12; 2 Sam 12:24). When the Bible cautions people not to give their strength to women, it is referring to prostitution or illicit sex (Prov 31:3). A man with one wife could have the sex that a man with ten wives does not have. After all, even if a man had one hundred wives he will not have more hours in his hand than the one with one wife. All of them have just twenty-four hours in a day. So to claim that because someone has many wives will use his strength more than the one with one wife is unfounded. The caveat is against excess.
The fact that the Bible says a man should be married to one wife does not mean it annuls marrying many wives. It does not say it is a sin or wrong to be married to many wives. On the contrary, it says illicit sex is wrong. In Africa and Latin America, polygyny is accepted by law. Though I believe that economically and emotionally polygamy is a burden, it is not the biblical position. If one woman is not enough, even two or ten will not be enough. I would not encourage polygamy for whatever reason.



Until then, let every man be married to one woman.





Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

Friday, August 24, 2007

Televangelist: Juanita Bynum’s Husband Bishop Weeks assaults her in a hotel parking lot.


When I heard it, I was not surprised. In a country where people regard animals more than human beings, human relationships do not have a chance to survive. I mean in a country where few resist abortions, where Mary Winkler shoots her preacher husband on the back while he is asleep and is sentenced to 7 months in jail; while, a man who killed dogs hears a unison sang by many leading him to the gallows like a captured mass murderer.

I feel disappointed that Bishop Weeks as the man was unable to control the situation that he had to fight in the parking lot with his estranged wife. One thing I have learnt is that never make a decision when you are angry; it is never a good one. The Bible says that the woman is a weaker vessel, so he would have known that by her running after him in the parking lot there was going to be trouble. Unfortunately, most of us do not consider the repercussions of our actions. Sometimes I go extra mile to clarify situations not because I need something but because I do not want people making rash decisions that will affect those behind me. I mean I do not want others to pick my broken vase.
Except Christianity gets converted from emotions to the mind, it remains tintinnabulations. Without being judgemental; those same theories of Bynum which most do lack biblical backings will not allow her to submit to her husband. That is the reason why most Female Tele evangelists are single. They have won the feminist battle but lost that of keeping a home.

Most Christian women have quickly embraced the tenets of feminism and rejected the orthodoxy of Christianity. Now marriage has become a reclusive turncoat of try by error. The number of divorces in the Christian homes outnumbers those of the non Christians that one has to wonder if there is a difference between the Christians and the non Christians. Except the order of the Bible: “wives submit yourselves to your husbands as unto the lord” is respected, such melodrama enacted by Bynum and Weeks yesterday is the mime Christendom and the society will regularly and freely be entertained. Since she was married, she was never called Mrs. Weeks. She has maintained her last and first name just to show you that the man Weeks is not her head. This marriage has taken too long to fail. However, whether the egg falls on the rock or the rock falls on the egg, the egg is the one that suffers. Christianity is the one bearing the brunt of these unfortunate circumstances.

Until then; lauds and vespers must increase for Christendom.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Ridiculous DNA for Black Americans.





















This treatise is in reaction to all black Americans tracing their roots from Africa and finding out that they have regal blood. To help Black Americans trace their roots, there are DNA groups all over with most of them unraveling that they were kings and queens, princesses and princes. This treatise is to create awareness that surrounds the bogus DNA ditched out to black Americans, but also to show how one could trace their origins. The results will be based on logic, African history, biblical analyses, linguistics and oral tradition. This is not an attempt to discredit the validity of DNA; it is rather to expose the misuse thereof. No one disagrees that DNA is a proven science. However, there have been several occasions where it has been misused like when the FBI faked an entire forensic field of forensic science.[1] DNA could be faulty if results have been contaminated like the case of John Schneeberger,[2] when a mistaken identity is used as was the ruse of Annie Dookhan,[3] or faulty equipment could result in a wrong DNA conclusion. More so, there is no human test or equipment that will ever be faultless. If it was, why is it not the only evidence in the conviction of a criminal case in the court of law? Ben Arrey writes:

"Dear Prince,
It is very interesting to read from you. I strongly agree with your findings on origin for African Americans. Sometime ago in 2002 and after, I worked with Dr. Rick Kittles at Howard University sequencing DNA from different tribal groups from Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, the Caribbean and even from Cameroon thanks to the efforts of professor Angwafor from CUSS in Yaoundé. Beyond that, as a DNA forensic expert witness, we always report statistics for three major populations, Caucasian, African American and Hispanics for the genotypes of an unknown piece of evidence. The science of DNA is true and informative but hardly is it used exclusively for conviction in a court of law in the US. I appreciate your piece on this".

That is how greats like TD Jakes, Whitaker, Oprah, Goldberg, Gates and many others were conned with those bogus DNA results.[4] They even said that Jakes was an Igbo king, and Steve Wonder was from the royal family in Ghana.  I am very conscious that the people in the days of Moses had their own science in tracing their genealogies, and that DNA will be a God given asset today. Nonetheless, like any other asset, it could be abused. How can Black Americans be working with websites that do not have a single African country in their database? What do you expect when you pay a prophet to prophesy? They will never prophesy doom to you. To keep the oil flowing, one has to protect the pipes. Are Black Americans from Europe and Asia, or are they from Africa? Why are they using European databases then? As such, one has to fault the DNA results that claim that every Black American is from the royal house.
Historically, the majority of slaves were not from the royal families. How then is it that almost every one of the popular stars came from a royal family? That is impossible because although the child of a tribal leader could be sold out like the story of Olaudah Equaino, it was neither the king nor his children. History records only one king who was sold overseas. That was king Whydah who was captured and sold by the king of Dahomey in the 18th century. Would then the sale of one childless king disperse that many kings and queens or princes and princesses?
More so, it was uncommon to have the children of kings and queens or chiefs sold out except when they became turncoats, and to the best of historical recollections, the loyalty in that era does not exist today. The sale of rebellious princes was an exception because the males were instead deprived from inheriting the throne while the woman was liquidated. The Kings enjoyed great power, popularity and sex from concubines and slave girls to be shipped. The premise was so highly respected that the royal children were not sent to school for fear they were beaten or touched by the teacher.
The early educated people were mostly slave kids because the harsh discipline that pupils and students received from teachers was considered punishment. It was misjudged that only the slave child would put up with it. In the Sub-Saharan region, even if a neighboring village invaded and captured a neighboring king or chief, they did not sell him. Instead, they kept him as a slave to the captor king. Generally, most slaves were criminals, prisoners of wars (POWs), cursed individuals, obanjes ,Osus, debtors, or extremely wretched individuals who wanted a means of survival; thus, they solicited to be sold somewhere. 
Fewer women were sold because they needed them back at home more, especially since the plantations could not be done without them. Women were only taken in the course of shortage of men. When slavery first began, women were not kidnapped. The trade was widened to include women because of the dead of men during the voyage, and the necessity for cheap sex to the sycophantic slave masters.
Notwithstanding, it is my belief that the Bible gives us some help in tracing our ancestry, and DNA could merely top if off.  The external evidence validating the authenticity and infallibility of the Bible reside in annotations of  historians like Josephus or even Herodutus the Father Of Lies”, Cornelius Tacitus , Suetonius and even Secundus who were against the Bible.
Most individuals raise the problem of inaccuracy of African History or Oral Tradition. Oral tradition may have the disadvantage of poor preservation, but it is not tantamount to spurious history. 
Nonetheless, from the synthesis of biblical narration and linguistics overhand, there are basic steps to trace one’s roots. The very first method is by comparing physiognomies: facial features (Gen 1:27) and skin color. When you look at the Ethiopian, Kenyan, Nigerian, Ghanaian or Cameroonian you know where they came from without anyone telling you. The Arabs of the Maghreb are different from the Bororos in Sub Sahara. If facial features are insufficient, you use linguistics differentiation as shown in judges 12:6 and Acts 2:6-12. If you met an African and you wanted to know their country, you listened to their native language. Within that language, their accent will tell their country, and this variation in orthoepy usually leads to the tribe (Num 13:4-16). For example, when you met an Upper Bayang and a Central Bayang, you knew the difference because of the usage of /gh/. The combination of voice velar plosive /g/ with the voiceless glottal fricative /h/ usually gave the similitude of a long /a:/ like in oghoh (you see). Meanwhile, to the Upper Bayang, the same sound gave voice velar plosive PEAM (pulmonic Airstream mechanism). In others words, the Central Bayang will mute the /g/ while the upper Bayang will aspirate it. In some cases, the voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ was used as the voiceless post Alveolar fricative / /. After tracing the tribe, you find the family by tracing the generations from the great grand ancestor (Numbers 3:17-20; 27:7-11).
              Some people argue that most Black Americans have the same accents, so it will be difficult to use ortheopic methods to discern their genealogy. That is not true. In exceptional cases do two people have the same accents, if we listen closely. How many people have the same voice?
The next step will be the last name, but there is a slight difficulty with the last name because most of the last names by the Black Americans were from the slave masters, either by mere nomenclature (the only they heard and liked) or because the man was the father of the child. That is why you hear a black American with the name Carter, and the White America too having Carter. The idea of having a white person and a black person with the same last name is not just for onomastic reasons. If traced carefully, one would realize that the slave owners birthed the children. Why then would children from that ancestry say that they are African Americans? Since children from mixed parents (slave owner and slave) were not permitted to marry their white counterparts, they remained with the other slaves or mixed people, but they still carried the last name.
Should individuals be worried at all about DNA genealogy? While I believe it would motivate the black American who wants to invest in Africa to do so if they knew their origin than if they had no clue, I still do not see the raison’ d’etre of having or coming from a royal house before doing so. All the DNA that concludes that the Black American has royal blood is ridiculous DNA as I have shown above. Most importantly, the Black Americans do not need to trace their roots. They are Americans and not Africans. They are never going back to Africa because Africa is neither their continent nor  does it provide any country they could call theirs. At most, they could be honorary citizens or naturalized citizens of given African countries. Even the children of Africans who were born here in the United states of America are not African Americans; they are Americans! I doubt if much attention is given to the wretched black American who says he or she is a Cameroonian. How many presidents will bequeath on that individual regal privileges? I think that the bygones must be bygones and the Black Americans who want to have a sense of originating from Africa should adopt any African country they feel comfortable and forget about this DNA scam because you do not have any DNA from Africa in those databases to find a match.

Until then, life is short: live it happily wherever you are.

Hamilton Ayuk

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Africarina


Africarina
Syncretism is when two religions come together to form a third religion. When a Jew and Gentile mate, their offspring was called Samaritan. I wonder what I should call her since she has mingled with western ideologies that she is now in between. Let’s call her Africarina. This is a lady born by African parents in Africa and emplaned to foreign land. Neither was she brought in manacles and shackles nor was she born out of Africa. Nonetheless, the forces of the society made her run away for fortune and for refuge. She already had the world underneath her feet but no roof over her head. Now she tramples the rumpled and crumpled tapestry of foreign life.

Prior to visiting the West, Africarina was breastfeeding her baby for even two years. Breastfeeding prolonged the life of her baby, gave the child fewer infections and reduced her rate of breast cancer. Breast cancer was not common with her type. Now, she says she is an emulous “Lady”. The feeding bottle has replaced breastfeeding.

After her baby, she divorced. Africarina does not have the same chances to make love like Tammy, her western friend. She is not flippant due to her upbringing. She was taught to wait for a man to tell her “I love you. Can we have a date”? Meanwhile, Tammy struts the opposite direction. Therefore, Africarina lairs in a love tabefaction. She knows many African women who came to the west single but could not find a mate until today. As for the African man who leaves the west to Africa to look for a wife, we just have to boost his self-confidence. The same goes for the African woman.

Erroneously, the African man believes Tammy is better in bed than Africarina. If that was so, then no western man will desire a foreign woman. However, Tammy would permit the man to explore everywhere and positions tabooed to Africarina; leaving the man wanting Viagra, Levitra and Cialis. That doesn’t necessary guarantee fulfillment either. There is some magic that makes her feel you are thinking with her heart. Furthermore, Tammy can go on the internet and fish while Africarina tills the factory. When she escapes the noise of the giant fan, she dreams and streams to other moneymaking machines.

Make no mistake, no woman is superior or inferior to another. In darkness, the peacemaker is a mere orifice, no matter the color or continent as such every water quenches fire! You smile; don’t you?

Africarina complains that the African man has left her for Tammy. Well the reason is simple; she surprises the African man with her chameleon behavior. Tammy does not surprise the African man because he expected it. Therefore, it is better to deal with the devil you know than the angel you do not know he says.

Africarina is struggling to unmewed herself that she wants to speak like Tammy. Meanwhile, the latter does not want to imitate her. That is what makes her inferior. She forgets everybody has an accent. Which of the western dialects of English would she imitate? She speaks in-between English language and madness with her nostrils and mouth in lallation. Africarina speak like you were born by your mother. Why feel inferior? Oh why Africarina? In her early twenties, she thought by recusing and using the F-word every minute means she was now like Tammy. Who tells you the Tammys with that ignivomous language are worth any attention?

I heard and saw Africarina put her husband out and claimed the property. She wants to show her emancipation. Africarina, the African man does not need this. Before the Tammys could be emancipated, you were already free to rule. Examples are Mwami Ndahiro I Riyange of Rwanda and the Modjadji V of South Africa (traditionally called the Rain Queen) who were leading their villages long before feminism ever showed its marriage breaking head worldwide. During the time they reigned, Tammy was still in her fetters and brass of male chauvinism.

Africarina wanted all her relatives in the house but none from the husband’s. If one comes in, she starts to fall fits. Tammy does not pose that problem if from the beginning she was drilled. On the contrary, Africarina knows that but she is just plain greedy.

Why does Africarina lam away from the politics of her host country? She and her friends emplaned as lawyers, doctors and teachers, but now they work as a CNA, customer service and married to the giant fan living hoity-toity, despite their education. When Africarina was fighting for a post, the post meant nothing to a rat or a cockroach. Africarina only wants to look like Tammy in vice but not in virtue. Africarina wake up! I say wake up! Stop trying to assert your leadership only in the house with your husband. Now that she is husbandless she looks for any gathering she can thump her Napoleonic grandeur or says she is a businesswoman. I guess the goods are in between her legs.

I went to the stadium looking for Africarina to show her prowess as the young athletic queen we knew. I only saw someone with a popsicle in the stand. She came here like an Ethiopian tadpole, but now she looks like a frog and frump because she has upgraded to a MacDonald Super Size. The slim little girl is now a potbelly woman, unable to breath and run though my age. Africarina nitpicks that her men are running after Tammy and homemades. Why wouldn’t they? Tammy is in the Gym to keep her shape while Africarina is in the factory, frazzling her body with overtime. I went to the factory on Valentine’s Day and I met only Africarina filling in, making the same money like Tammy. Vacation is a new word to her. She is overworking herself to sleep and snore when the husband is a man. Who wants a dead horse for pervastistry? Africarina, money is not also all of life. Life is worth more than just that money. I am not saying she should be a model but treat those palms to be soft. They may wound it bad. You could be big but stay in shape Africarina. Where are the little tadpoles that came form Africa?

Tammy moved to Africa and adapted to her environment (ask Ghana) but Africarina, lives and will die a stranger. If you ran from political persecution and your presidents always rule for life, then you may die abroad. Hahahahaha. Take for instance, in Cameroon, Biya says he still has 20 years. If you are 40, you may only go back when you are 60. What are you going to do in Cameroon at 60? You will die after two years anyway. Hahahahaha. Africarina wake up! This is your home.

Africarina used to be very spiritual. Now she does not even go to church. Her friends who preach do not even know the basics of homiletics. What is the difference between Joyce Myers and you Africarina? Synagogues in Israel were places of worship Jews erected to replace the abandoned temple in Jerusalem during their captivity. No people can separate themselves from their belief system even on the run or in bondage because in it, they live and have their being. Africarina, take your place. Come back home to that place where everyone said Africarina my Africarina.

Until then, be yourself if you want the African Man.


Prince and PA Hamilton Ayuk

Dieing to Self

Dieing to self
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," (Philippians 3:8”
What is dieing to self? Paul explains it as losing everything that will hinder you from winning Christ. Mortifying your members that make you sin.
1) You write a mail but no one replies. Yet you do not get mad. That is dieing to self.
2) You write an article and someone ridicules it and you do not curse them. That is dieing to self.
3) You are standing on a line and someone cuts in front of you but you do not curse them. That is dieing to self.
4) As a pastor, you are able to confess your fault to your congregation. That is dieing to self.
5) You are driving and someone cuts in front of you crazily and you do not fight back. That is dieing to self.
6) You sing a song you thought was very good and no one praises you. Yet you do not lose your cool. That is dieing to self.
7) Your wife rebukes you for a fault and you accept responsibility without resistance. That is dieing to self.
8) Your husband mistakenly uses a misplaced language on you before the kids and you do not fight back. That is dieing to self.
9) You perform to the best of your ability and your boss still says “not good enough”. Yet you do not hate him in your heart. That is dieing to self.
10) You do good and people pay you back with evil but you do not fret. That is dieing to self.
11) Someone makes a side comment about your weight and you do not explode. That is dieing to self.
12) You cook a nice meal yet your kids/ husband/wife thinks it’s not good enough and you do not think of dieing. That is dieing to self.
13) People say negative things about your color (race) and you do not fight back. That is dieing to self.
14) You see your partner talking with the opposite sex and you do not want to hang. That is dieing to self.
15) You know you are more qualified for a post yet another person is appointed over you and you still submit. That is dieing to self.

That is because the dead do not feel or hear what is done or said against them. For the sake of wining Christ, we let go certain things that in our natural self would not let go. We let certain people who would not have been able to say certain things say them to us. For the sake of Christ, we answer yes sir even to people we know are not good enough. Yeah, for the sake of Christ when even the weakest link slaps us we turn the other cheek for them to slap a second. For the sake of Christ when your boss forces you to go a mile you go two.

Until then, let us dies to self.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

Mister Rufus: alias Chief

Draught players

Adjacently third from Pharmacie Du Rail, towards Hotel Arista in Koulouloun; Douala, Cameroon, sat a small ramshackle house owned by a Nigerian called Rufus: a man in his 50s who perched always in front of his house. He has lived in Cameroon long before I was born. He greeted only those who greeted him, but he despised those who didn’t. Greeting him without his title of Chief would embrace snobbery. Many neighbors did not even know his real name, except ironically those he judged with good behavior.

When on holidays, I spent some time with Chief playing draught. People always gathered there to watch us in recreation. He melded himself Maître (Master). He wasn’t the best player, but his mouth made him the greatest. We had players like Cadavere (corpse), Jeune Maître (Young Master-myself), Sawasawa (sour), Accident, Kill Man Pay, Dirty Bird and Chief who were regulars. The rest were passersby. When chief was winning a game, he elbow lengthily pulled up his shirt’s left sleeve and showed the spectators to affirm that draught was running in his veins. He wore mockery as a frontlet. Seeing a loophole where he will eat three or more seeds, he called aloud one of his houseboys or wives for a glass of water, telling  them that he was about to eat lots of food and did not want to choke. You smile; don’t you?

In the evening, most seniors came to watch us amuse ourselves. Oftentimes, we were ten, and the first person to win two games unseated the opponent. During the day, the Etis (learners) had the board. Jeune Maître, though the best was not always there because he was where his mother; a petty trader sold bushmeat pepper soup. If a strong man came and troubled them, they sent for him immediately. He too was a slender university student who won his games with songs of mockery that he composed according to the opponent. Chief didn’t go to work, but he made more money than anyone coming there did because he had stores all over the place.

His first wife; Mami Chioma (it means good God, called after their first and only daughter Chioma) went and brought a handmaid called Ngozi to help them. When she turned 16, Chief ascertained her soup, it tasted good, and he took it wholesale in marriage. Sarah and Hagar drama was re-enacted. She too went and brought her own biddy called Akudo. When Akudo reached 16, chief tasted hers and married her too. Now, chief had three wives and five houseboys who all went to trade and bring him the money. They handed him the money before they entered into the house. Wonders shall never end! What happens in the house of the fowl will happen in the house of the duck. Don’t forget that the evil that women do live with and after them. When you sleep with another woman’s husband, another lady will sleep with yours. That is just the law of nature; you may call it karma or the Law of Retribution!

When Chioma turned 16, Chief Ndubisie; a 45-year-old man too discovered her innocent soup. It almost stuck in his throat because chief was rich and wanted to serve him justice. Chief Ndubisie was a rock that the sea manhandled, but it could not carry away. He fended chief’s micrurgy and served chief  with the adage “the evil that men do live with and after them”. Nature did not end there. Chief’s business went bankrupt. The second wife accused the first, and he divorced her. The third indicted the second, and he divorced the second. Akudo had no one to blame, so she absconded.

There is a rule that nature scrupulously fulfills and upholds: "do unto others what you want them do unto you”. If you cheat someone, you will be cheated too, one day. If you play a girl, another girl will play you too,or someone will play your daughter. Players beware! If you ignore someone, you will be ignored too. Snobs beware! Whatever evil you do, you will be repaid one way or the other; directly or indirectly. If it is not on earth, at least it will be in heaven or in the world to come. In short, whatever you sow, you shall reap! Jesus reminds us to “do unto others what we want them do unto us” (Mt 5:12). Therefore, my friend watch your ways!

Until then, keep playing people!

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

MARIE

Marie was a young girl who used to sing in a church. She was the type that the phrase “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” corresponded without a second guess. She had such beauty that made men scramble to give her a lift if she needed one. There were men that would want to give her one of their eyes if she had just a speck. If it was raining, they gave her the umbrella while they walked in her company under the rain. She was popular in church; not for her singing but for her beauty.

As such, young men saw visions and old men dreamt dreams of wedding her. They lined up after each church service with each of them struggling to have an opportunity to place their application. As many as placed them, she did all to reject them; some immediate and others later. It became a challenge to most young men to try and see who will finally be the lucky winner. Love poems were written and love stories were told with the intention of winning Marie, yet all ended in her waste basket.

She was beautiful, and she knew it. She played with the hearts of men like Hera toyed with Hercules'. She could lift you up and drop you down. She was not a church leader, but she could craft decisions because even those in authority appeased their lust with her company. The more popularity she ganered, the many more men she rejected.

As life walks with time, all these young people were tired running a race they knew they will never win. As losers, they had to be contented with “shadows”. They got married to some of the waiting sisters. They now live their wives as happy as never before, with none regretting they ever missed Marie. Marie was perplexed that she could no more have advances.

Though singing of love, she lacked love, and she did not know how to tampon loneliness. She sang and danced of delectation, but she was burning with misery and anxiety. Before the church could know it, Marie had left the church and eloped with a non-Christian who did all to thump her fearfully and wonderfully made image to a sample of surgery-gone-bad. Tired of all the abuse, she ran back into the church. In church, she gradually regained her beauty, but she now has to face the visitation of Men-o- Pause.

Though Marie is single and ready to mingle, she is still single and looking with no advances. Her beauty is fading with entropy beckoning her body as would every human. The future is bleak with occasional flashes of sperm donors and players. She is now desperately knocking on the wrong doors and gate crashing the wrong places, all, to no avail! Marie has lost many opportunities in search of Mr. Passpartout or soulmate who lives in heaven.

As for those who are in the single market, if you are single and ready to mingle, be vigilant how you reject your pretenders. At a given time, they will be scarce because all the ones God sent to you were not good enough. They were not good enough because you made them not good enough. At a given time, only the people you do not want, will run after you, but those you want will flee away from you.

You know you are beautiful, but you can’t seem to lay a hand on a husband. You know you are handsome (even the lady’s man), but you are lonely like the clock’s second hand. It moves alone, and when it stops around the minute or hour hand, you know there is trouble. It never seems to have anyone to walk with. Let’s know that our bodies change and time waits for no one. Let’s learn from Marie and be wise not to look for Mr. Passpartout or Miss Passpartoute who do not even exist. If not, we will be reenacting “Waiting For Godot”. The market is crowded, and the goods are scarce people. If by chance you see one that you could buy and adapt, gladly take it. The righteous shall live by faith, and God honors and helps those who want him to help them. There is no perfect man (Mr Right) or woman out (Ms Perfect) there for you. Human beings are like aubergines. Some have less maggots,but others are maggotsful. Just take yours and do a little bit of work.

Until then, just select the magotless and present it to God who with time will make it maggot free.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

Husband and Wife snatchers

We have heard many stories of women who have lost their husbands to other women, or men whose wives ran for other men. Some lost theirs to death, others to some unforeseen circumstance, and some to other women or men. The latter group behooves me more. Therefore, a husband or wife snatcher is the woman or man who takes the spouse of another woman or man. What other people call Husband or Wife Snatcher. It would seem it is not a new idea.

We have seen this same phenomenon with Harpalyce: the hunting princess, follower of Artemis in Greek Mythology. She hunted anything that moves until her people became wary of her, caught her and beat her to death. Her name even tells it all when the first two syllables of her name mean snatcher and the last part means wolf. Women and men who snatch the spouses of others are wolves. They are a wolves to the society, wolves to spouses and wolves to themselves. Unfortunately, despite some of the poetic justice they go through, the practice is still very rampant. Some have been shot dead point blank, others given a drink they never woke up, and some embraced with clinical lunacy. Homes have been shattered, friendships kaput, jobs lost, relationships wrecked and lives defunct because of snatchers.

There are many reasons why married people lose their spouses. The Bible says “a virtuous woman doeth good to her husband all the days of her life (Prov 31:12). There are three ways in which a woman could do good to her husband. The first is food, the second is sex and the third is a peaceful home. The Bible makes us understand that people work all the days of their lives simply because they want to have food on the table (Eccl 2:24; 3:22 ).

If there is no food on the table, your spouse will never be satisfied to stay. No human can downplay the importance of sex in marriage. Therefore, when a spouse becomes a frump, it is a tacit invitation to snatchers. If they treat sex as a reward to good behavior, it is a repellent to “foreign shops”. When sex becomes a weapon of  subjection or control, then a wolf was just given dinner. The spouse starts to flirt with a coworker, neighbor, best friend, church member, who angelically treats them with gratuitous sex and meals of a first class chef. If you are nagging the spouse daily, putting him down and laying thorns in the house with your mouth, another woman will wash and soothe his bleeding feet caused by your thorny words.
The secret of keeping a woman is loving her like Christ loved the church and died for her. No matter the church's foolishness, Christ is still there. No matter the number of times that the church falls, Christ is still there. No matter what little problem the church has, Christ is always there. Christ is always with the Church when she is facing hardship and when she is enjoying. The woman wants the man to always be there and listen to he narrate  meaningless stories. You should be there an agree with her, even when it does not make sense. When she hits her head on the wall, she will learn a lesson. However, the man must always follow.

When other women or “best friends” tell you that your husband is sleeping around, it is not out of love but ingeniously to knock you out of your home so that either you will become like them or give room to them. Most women who tell wives of men that their husbands are sleeping around, themselves are single, looking and ready to mingle. What do you think they are looking out there? They are gazing at wandering and stray spouses! Then they pick them up as a wolf does with a stray sheep. Before you know it, your best friend is in and you are out because you have itchy ears.

Don’t blame the society or your spouse for a snatched spouse. If a shepherd takes good care of his cattle, no wolf will snatch one. Husbands are like sheep: they easily stray off the herd because they always see the grass greener where danger looms, but your good treatment will retain them. Remember, men are influenced more by sight unlike women who are influenced by touch. A man just needs to see a good skirt to go berserk ;meanwhile, the woman needs some sweet talk and tender touch to appeal to her emotions. The she starts to turn her neck and pushing her hair like a fowl has an object stuck in its throat.

My friends, the single market is saturated and especially good men are scarce to a fault. The list of single women is too long which is normal because there are many more women on earth than men. If a girl rejects your application, drop it next door. It is like seeking for employment. You keep applying until a company employs you. If you have the goods, you should at least find a buyer. However, cut your coat according to your size. Just leave the one that is married, else you will become a wife snatcher.
Until then, do unto others what you want done unto you.

Prince and PA Hamilton Ayuk

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Toplessness Is not Nudity. You must be 18 to read this article.

This ceremony is watched all over the world.
 Zulu virgins during their Annual Reed Dance.

President Sarkozy of France.

   If those virgins are nude, then those presidents are nude too, since all are exposing their breasts.

President Jacob Zuma receives King Makhado Bravery Award

President Putin of Russia
Chelsea Handler












The topic of nudity is very sensitive that even amoral people have a say. Many missionaries, teachers and tourists have visited Africa and in most videos and books, the climax is usually the topless virgins. As novices to the African culture, they return to their various homes with the conclusion that Africans walk naked, so they need clothes to wear. True, you have some places where people walked naked but to them, it was not a sin. Those ones cannot be defended. My preoccupation is to show that toplessness is not part of nudity through biblical exposition, cultural narratives, psychological interpretations, historical perspectives and syllogical presentations . I believe that nudity starts and ends with genitals; consequently, Africans should feel comfy to keep dancing bare breasted as they used to, without fear of sin. Therefore, stay with an open mind as you read this paper.

Does a farm, bush or forest become a super market because it was cleared? Does beer become oil because it was put in a bottle? If the bush is cleared, virgin, desolate, barren or fertile, it is still a bush. If the bush is exposed, no matter its state, it is nude. The bush may be wrinkled and crinkled or smooth and sauve, it does not matter. Once there is no covering on the genitals, it is nudity. Nudity is lacking a covering on the genitals as you will soon realize.


Here is Eto'o's wife caught with no bra. The title says , "topless" and not nude.

When the Africans did not know that exposing the woman’s breasts was a “sin”, no one condemned those who walked bare breasted. That correlates with the Bible as explained in Rom. 7:7-8. Some people contend that bare breastedness will make us lust, and lust just on its own is sinful. That is unbiblical either! Why is it that we have not stopped eating food which makes us sin when we eat too much? We control our appetites, and those who do not, use their mouths to kill themselves with obesity.


In addition, bare breastedness is not tantamount to lust because if two bare breasted women were standing in front of us, and one due to too much mileage has her breasts sleeping on her chest while the other one with less mileage has her oranges, people will look and lust more after the less mileage. Would these pictures below have the same effect on a man? If no, then lust per se is not sin; it is merely a catalyst or a generator of sin.



Perhaps I should juxtapose two verses that seem to invoke some contradiction.  The words of Jesus in Matthew 5:28 and those of James in James 1:15. If we look carefully, Jesus is talking about consumption of the sin in your heart, and James is talking about fantasizing about the object. If we say that fantasy is sin, then when you feel like to have a cold yogurt, you have sinned because you will be lusting. Until fantasy conceives on the forbidden, we do not talk of sin. It becomes sin when you fantasize for anything that is forbidden. For example; if you have sex with someone’s wife in your heart; whether you do it in person or not, it is sin. That does not make it sin simply by wishing if you saw the same woman and wished (lust) she was your wife or she was in bed with you. Even those who are married will tell you that they have seen some people and wished they were married to them, or those who are single have seen some people and wished they were their spouses. Does that mean they have sinned because they express an inner desire?  
More so, although lust is just ingrained in the human heart, it must conceive to give birth to sin (James 1:15). It was not established that women who were wooed or lured into fornication or adultery were all bare breasted at the time the sin was taking place. Whether a woman is covered from her head to her feet, people will still lust after her. Some men just need to now this is a woman, and their lust engine goes into motion. Am I lying ladies and gentlemen? If covering eradicates sin, then there will neither be adultery nor fornication in those Muslim countries where the women cover themselves with burqas.

Biblically, the breasts of a woman have not been shown as part of nudity that God set an injunction against. When Adam and Eve sinned and realized they were naked, they lacked only dross. When they realized they were naked, the Bible says they made themselves /aprons/ (Gen 3:7), in Hebrew chăgôrâh which has the English equivalence of a belt for the waist. Take note.. it is the waist and not the chest. The breasts are found on the chest and not waist, if you have forgotten. Please pardon my reminder, but I had to do it! The word apron is used only twice and in the second place where it is used: Acts 19:12, it simply means narrow covering. It would befit my explanation considering that when compared with the aprons chefs use, it would be misinterpretation since Paul would not have had that type because they did not exist by then. The Bible says God sewed animal skin for them to cover their nakedness (Gen 3:21). God had made coats of skins to clothe Adam and Eve not to cover their nudity only but to protect them from air borne and skin diseases that could easily ensnare them if they were topless.

Historically, during the Roman Empire, the buckles, belt plates and aprons were metalic. Around the 1800s, aprons were used by women to protect their skirts (worn from waist downwards) during working hours. Again, a little reminder, skirts were not worn on the chest level. If Aprons were meant to cover only the waist then nakedness did not involve the chest. That will again support the fact that the aprons Adam and Eve made did not reach the chest level. I hope you do remember that the breasts are on the chest. Sorry, I have to keep reminding some of you.

If nakedness comprises the breasts, then since God made both Adam and Even with breasts, the chest of a man is part of nudity. That too would not be true because the Old Testament priest was cautioned not to climb right high less he shows his nakedness (Ex 20:26). Remember he was wearing his garment, yet they said he should not climb up the stairs not to show his nakedness. How would he have shown his nudity if he had his cassock on? It is not metonymical since the same expression is repeated in most passages in Leviticus. That entails only the genital was nudity since the priest was covered till the ankle, but he did not have an underwear. Don't be alarmed; priests did not wear underwear.

Another case was that of Noah. In Genesis 9, Noah was lacking underwear. Even our drawings and pictures have always shown Noah lacking only underwear. That is what the Bible called nakedness (nudity): exposing the peacemakers.

Is Barack Obama on a Hawaii Beach nude? Now, could you imagine Michele Obama in the same posture? The media would have read: "Sacrilege in America; the president's wife goes nude!" I don't know how much the journalist would auction the photograph because it would look like some special breasts, and special breasts they would be. 



Culturally, most societies using the nakedness of the woman as a curse have never used the breasts. The old women in Africa washed their genitals to curse or threaten to curse culture and customs defaulters. A virgin was never included in the process because she was still considered pure. Until the coming of the Whiteman, Africans walked naked, but there were no rapes. Furthermore, sex was not a commodity too. Clothes were only worn by prostitutes.

If eternity is in the heart of all men as the Bible says, it means that, God would have made the entire humanity aware that bare breastedness was a sin, even before the arrival of the Whiteman to Africa. The Bible again says that those who did not have the word of God before they died, their consciences would be used as the canon to judge them (Rom 2:12-15). By implication, the innate fear of God is put in the hearts of all humans because truth is not relative. That means; if God put bare breastedness as nudity in the hearts of the Westerners, then He would have put the same thing in the hearts of the Orientals. Adultery is considered wrong in all cultures; Christian or heathen, agnostics or Atheists!

Remember it was not because the Westerner was more civilized than the African since civilization began in Africa (Egypt) and not in Europe or America. The Africans who did not cover their genitals was not because they did not know it was sinful; it was because they did not have the constant covering. Most of them sewed their clothes from leaves and ropes to cover their genitals, way before the Westerner could even bring fanciful clothes. One has to remember when clothes were invented. Immediately after the fall. Therefore, bare breasts is a sin to be invented, defined and introduced by the Westerner into the African culture. As such, women should be allowed to walk barebreasted without being condemned. 

Africans should feel comfortable to keep dancing as they used to without fear of sin. The inclusion of the female breast as part of nudity is because of the male chauvinistic influence on language. The man has always tried to make a woman subservient to him. By defining her breasts as nudity, he regulates the dress code of the woman to his proclivity. There is nothing immoral about the breasts of women.

Why have we never cried foul when topless male models appear on Fear Factor and other TV programs? Did America not cry foul when Janet Jackson’s nipple tugged its head outside to catch some fresh-air? It was called a wardrobe malfunction. That is male chauvinism in action! When Hilary Clinton had her First Degree, people said she had a bachelor. Why is a woman having a Bachelor Degree instead of a Spinster Degree or a Mrs Degree for the married? Language has been structured to favor men and so does dressing too. Some woman should sue her university for naming her bachelor rather than spinster.

However, there is a fear the excesses of the Reed Dance could lead to nudity because people could be tempted to emulate their morally bankrupt counterparts as screened in western pornographic movies. The Africans should only watch against its immoderations. One thing most people do not know is that all those girls dancing in the Reed Dance are virgins. How many of these Western girls at that age who cover themselves from toe to head are virgins? Which is better: dancing barebreasted and keeping yourself chaste or dancing with your clothes on and being promiscuous? American women cannot even breastfeed in public, but they can watch porn. Actually, the Reed Dance is a time when young girls come face to face with their bodies and develop the perfect self esteem to deal and accept their bodies. The Reed Dance would actually help western kids to accept their bodies and avoid breasts, vagina, lip etc plastic surgeries. In the Reed Dance, every body type is celebrated. Westerners should start organizing their own Reed Dance. I don't mean stripteasing or Nude camps. because those are exploitative and sinful. Anytime you expose your vagina or penis in public, you have sinned. I mean just have these adolescents and teenagers dance bare-breasted to celebrate their bodies.

Therefore, the Zulus should continue their Annual Reed Dance for virgins without fear they are inviting the wrath of God. It has never been a sin; it is not a sin, and it will not be a sin if we stay only on the toplessness. That which was sinful has been established and put in our hearts time immemorial, so anything introduced yesterday or today would only be a continuation of the “Whiteman’s Burden”. Woe unto Africans if they should encumber that egregious religious or vestal lumber the second time!

Until then, nudity starts and ends with the genitals.

Prince and PA Hamilton Ayuk
video\
Please donate to support my self publishing. Thanks! 

My Little Immanuel Church!

Did you see my little Immanuel Church? That sat on top of reformed theology. It was not just the doctrine they taught; It wa...