Sunday, March 28, 2010

Why Would People Not Be Depressed?

Can someone; anyone tell me what is hopeful here? This is news from

Local And Regional
Atlanta Weather: Chance Of Isolated Showers Monday
Clarkston Police Searching For Teen's Killer
PHOTOS: Funny Cats, Funnier Captions
Police: Man Arrested For Using Fake Money
Memorial For Brother, Sister Killed In Car Crash
Report: Husband Shot Former State Senator
Teens Hit By Car While Changing Tire, 2 Dead
CLARK HOWARD: Best Free Credit Report Websites
P.E. Teacher Accused Of Child Porn Charges
PHOTOS: Somebody Screwed Something Up
Police: Street Fight Leads To Teen's Death
School Burglar Hides In Ceiling, Gets Tasered
Officials: Baby Found In Meth Lab
Marietta Bakery Gets Marijuana Shipment
Drugs Go Missing At Gwinnett County Police HQ
Free Health Care Event In South Fulton
Man Accused Of Trying To Buy Child Online
Braves Hopeful Arrested In Prostitution Sting
Bullets Shatter Atlanta Courthouse Window

National News

Violent Storms Do Damage North Of Charlotte
Colombian Rebels Free Captive Soldier
Voodoo Practitioners Honor Victims Of Haiti's Earthquake
Apps To Curb Distracted Driving Face Tough Task
Steelers: Roethlisberger Not Expected Monday
British Protesters Demand Pope Quit Over Abuse
Health Overhaul Likely To Strain Doctor Shortage
Dutch Disarm 12 Pirates Off Coast Of Somalia
More Than 7,000 Protest Crime Wave In Mexico
Grasshopper Outlook Strikes Fear On Western Range
NY Archbishop Defends Pope Against Sex Abuse Furor
Home Alarm System, $16.95 a Month, No Contract
What Health Screenings You Should Get
Grocery Store Myths Revealed
Find The Right Company To Remodel Your Kitchen

From Our News Partners
Man Formally Charged In Murder Of Somer Thompson
Declare 'Confedrate Southern American' On Census Forms, Group Says
Coroner Mix-Up Gets Wrong Man Cremated
Plane Bolt Falls From Sky, Shatters Sunroof
Attack Victim: 'He'll Rape Me In Front Of God'
Officials Try To Run Off Famous Cathedral Of Junk
Man Steals Vietnam War Memorial Plaque, Sells It For Scrap
Police: Woman Lied About Baby's Ashes Being Stolen
Police Could Charge Woman For Fighting Off Sex Attack With Bite
Man Convicted Of Cutting Out DJ's Eyes

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Is The Tea Party Right; Are Army Deaths Rising because of Gays?

Tea Party in Action
Yesterday I was watching ABC and saw idiocy at its best. Some Tea Party protesters held placards that read that army deaths were increasing due to gays being in the Army. The belief is growing stronger and stronger that the high deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to gays and lesbians in the army. Simply because someone is a homosexual does not mean they attract the wrath of God more than those who are heterosexual. Actually I have met some very kind lesbians and gays like I have met some very mean spirited straight people. Furthermore, biblically, the notion that being gay attracts God’s wrath more than heterosexuality is unfounded because though people have been citing sodomy as the reason why God rained down brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, it is not; it was just due to their sin.

Look at the dialogue between Abraham and God (Gen 18:20), the crux is sin. It was not due to their sin, but the fact that they refused to repent. Proverbs says “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy” (Prov 29:1).

In between Mount Hor and the Land of Edom, God sent fiery serpents to venomously kill many because of murmuring (Numbers 21: 4-9). The answer is simple: “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy” (Prov 28:13).

At Mount Sinai where Moses had gone to get the Ten Commandments, he delayed a little bit. The people became impatient and corrupted themselves by making a molten calf to replace God. God through Moses gave them another chance to amend their ways by repenting and choosing his side. Some did but others rejected the salvific offer. About 3000 of those who rejected that offer were killed (Ex 32: 1-35). They are not killed because of their corruption but the refusal to repent. Solomon said “He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding” (Prov. 15:32).

The reason why God condemned and destroyed the era of Noah was not because of their wickedness but because of their refusal to repent. (Gen 6-7). Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem and took them into captivity in Babylon because of the evil they committed under Manasseh. Despite the little effort by Josiah, God did not forgive them (2 Kings 23:26) because they did not entirely repent. After Josiah who had begun the repentance campaign died, Jehoahaz the son reverted to their old corruption and idolatry. So God allowed them to be taken into captivity due to their stubbornness. Read this:
Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil ( Prov 1:24-33).

Therefore, the war deaths are not increasing because God is confounding the US army for admitting the gays and lesbians into the army, but for other factors. Since they are in every facet of our lives, country and the world; then, it would not only be the US to suffer. A few factors are responsible for the high death rate. The first is the inability to identify the enemy. The guerrilla tactics used by the terrorists and extremists is working. The army at times mistakes enemies for civilians especially when civilians are used as human shields. The cruelty of the terrain puts the troops in awful danger. The warzones are quiet different from what our boys are used to facing. These guys (terrorists) were born in these terrains and know the topography well; meanwhile, the army has to adapt. The third reason is our in ability to recruit autochthones to join the US Army. That has robbed us of eminent victory. Muslims consider it a religious war rather than a war on terror, so they do not seem to lend their support to fight the enemy. In short, there are many reasons why many are dying, but it has nothing to do with the fact that there are homosexuals in the army.

Until then, Christians should learn to be tolerant.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk
“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

How Enlightened Are Americans?

Sometimes it amazes me how some Americans do not even know their own country . If they do not know their own country would they know about the world ? A World map published and distributed to schools by Holt had Cambodia as a country in Africa. Ask my friend Andre Franco. Hitherto I do not understand why the majority of Americans still say: “Excuse me; which country do you come from again: Africa? So to make things easier for myself I introduce myself by just saying “I am from Africa”, but if the person proves enlightened and asks which country then I go ahead and say Cameroon. “Sorry I did not get you well”. Then you repeat “Cameroon”. “Cameroon? Is that still in Africa? They will quickly retort like our adorable Kellie Pickler .

Is that close to Egypt? They will rejoin. My mother-in-law went to some part of Egypt. They explain. Do you speak African or what do you speak? Sometimes I want to snap back that “would you ask a German if he or she speaks European”. You explain that in Africa we speak more than two thousand (2000) languages. They will quickly cut you up with “you mean dialects”. I find it intriguing that a Master’s degree holder in English Language does not know the difference between a dialect and a language. You dress well they ask you. “Where did you learn how to dress when you guys don’t wear clothes in Africa”? Who ever told you we all walk naked in Africa? “Did you ever sleep on a tree or a hut”? Some will say “Ayuk, have you ever killed a lion with your hands? Boy Kunta Kinte” which he actually pronounces as Kintakonte.

This guy met me one time during a Falcon’s game and said “Hey bro, I saw white people representing Zimbabwe in the Olympics. Do white people live in Africa too”? I will say listen: they do not only live there; they are actually Africans for more than 31/2 centuries. Are they from America or something? He will ask in utter bewilderment.

I was working with this guy, so he invited some girls to see him at work. I asked: if one of them was married. “Hamilton, don’t you go there. You already have many wives like ten or so back in your country, but I just have this one”. He pontificated. I wonder where the notion came from that every African is a polygynist. The one I always heard was that African men are domineering. I have tried to invite people to our cultural functions so that they can erase some of their wrong stereotypes.

One day an American teaching Spanish threatened that if the other teacher “kept speaking that thing (Spanish) I (her) will get up and leave”. To me it was rather embarrassing that a Spanish teacher will threaten to leave if the other teachers kept speaking Spanish which she does not understand well. I mean, if you do not understand the language then learn it.

Let us say I fall in love with a woman from Idaho. To know the person better I will study the place that will be my new predilection. If they were speaking a language that I don’t understand, I will learn it. Take your time to learn of other people. When traveling, please take the world Map and glance through. Read online newspapers, for they are free. Attend functions of other people to sharpen your diversity skills.

Until then, know that isolationism is outdated, and the world is now a bigger village.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Go Back Home Fon Anyangwe!

On March 15, 2010, the Cameroonian community in the Diaspora especially America was taken aback to hear that Fon Ericsyrol Anyangwe-the hereditary Fon of Oshie Village has recaptured his throne that was seized from him on February 11, 2009. It is strange to see the many people lauding him now; meanwhile, many castigated him for being an absentee Fon. It shows that success always has brothers and sisters, but failure is an orphan. During the Fon’s absence, he left behind George Anyangwe to act as regent, but the latter too defected leaving a vacant fondom that could easily be seized. Consequently, the Fon was dethroned with the aid of the cultural association in Cameroon which usurped the fondom for Lawrence Anyangwe who himself was not living in the village; nonetheless, he was living in Cameroon. Watch Lawrence Anyangwe enthroned as Fon.

Fon Anyangwe had been living abroad long time before the father passed away for him to be made Fon. Though he had lived abroad, they had hoped that the Fon would come back home to rule his fondom as custom entails because the people need him more and frequently. More so, living at home will enable the people to see if their Fon is still fit to serve as a custodian of the culture. If Fon Ericsyrol Anyangwe was in Cameroon, walking from one beer parlor to another, there would have been a genuine outcry about such wayward Fon. Considering that most of the people in the US are exiles whose stress is watered down by the many bottles of beer they drink in beer parlors, they do not see anything bad with the Fon.

Indeed it is difficult to believe that the Fon would be very efficient, mindful of the fact that the regent does not have the same spiritual powers that he has. If there was an emergency that the regent cannot handle, Oshie will need to postpone the matter until their Fon comes home to visit. If irresponsibility is in various forms, then that is one of them. This is not only for Fon Anyanwe; there are even village chiefs living out of their villages. You either stay at home or abdicate your throne, and you give it to the person who thinks that the village is the better place to live. That way you can continue to enjoy your life in exile.

There is no law that states that Fons, lamibe and chiefs cannot live outside their villages, but that has been the tradition. Most laws in our villages are not written; they are orally transmitted from one generation to another. Considering that Fon Ericsyrol Anyangwe is a traditional ruler and not an administrative ruler, he is governed by the traditional laws that put him there in the first place. It was the same orally transmitted law that made his fondom hereditary, and if he does not want to follow oral tradition then he can now submit the fondom to a written set of laws which is governed by democracy. In that case, due to his long time absence from the fondom, he is not qualified to run for elections; thus, making Lawrence Anyangwe the rightful owner of the throne of Oshie village. However, if Fon Ericsyrol Anyangwe abides by those traditions, then as stipulated that the Fon must live at home then he must drink his last bottles in America and park his things home once and for good.

To show you that tradition is eroding, Fon Ericsyrol Anyangwe has recaptured his throne by the aid of the DO and SDO and not by the will of the Oshie people, for they are tired having an absentee Fon. Who wants an absentee president? Who wants an absentee father? Isn't the Fon the father of the Oshie people? So why must he be kept as the Fon if he is living in Diaspora even as Mukefor cited “Law No 77/245 of 15th July 1977 TO ORGANIZE CHIEFDOMS obliges incumbent traditional rulers to reside in their Chiefdoms”? Where did the Divisional Officer (DO) and the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) keep their eyes that they did not see this law, or perhaps is it just that the mouth that is full does not speak?

Ab initio, the customary court in Cameroon worked in harmony with the traditional council as it was made of village heads. Administrators like the SDO and Dos were there to coordinate the activities of the sub division and division. They did not determine the governing of a village. The reason why the territorial administration took over and reorganized the fondoms and chiefdoms up to categorizing them was to have a grip of the people because whosoever had the Chiefs, the Fons or Lamibe had his people especially as their subjects were subservient and acquiescent even if it mean entering into a hole.

The meddling of the DO and SDO showed that customary and traditional powers have ceded way to administrative powers. For the DO to send a letter warning that there was no vacancy in the Oshie Fondom was a gross misrepresentation.

The law does not need to specify how long he must reside with his people, but tradition endorses the belief that "to reside" means to live there in the village and not merely trimestrial or quarterly visits. The fact that some fons did not and do not reside in the village does not make it the norm. We all as a people should decry such absenteeism that sets us more backwards than forward.

Some may argue that he is living abroad to create contacts for the village. We may want to ask how many of such contacts he has created when the palace is now inhabited by goats, chickens and pigs. Why does he not delegate those powers to the villagers who reside abroad to do that?

The case of the Oshie Fon: Ericsyrol Anyangwe living abroad and pretending to rule from America is an example of the degradation and downgrade of traditional relics. The myth that laid behind the Fon disappears as many people refuse to get up when they see him enter the beer parlor as they would have normally done in most places in Cameroon because there is no one to enforce those codes.

Until then, Fon Anyangwe should return home.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk.

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Did You Murder Loyalty?

Nowadays, it is difficult to trust people. Ask most girls they will tell you “you cannot trust any guy” and ask guys they will tell you “you cannot trust any girl”. Trust is lacking because people have killed loyalty. Underneath the word trust lies an ingredient called loyalty. There is no loyalty today. It is dead! Men and women cheat because they are not loyal. Friends betray friends because they are not loyal. As for others, they just don’t now what is loyalty. Loyalty is a sign of true friendship.

Joseph of Arimathaea was a friend and disciple of Jesus. He was rich, but Jesus was poor. Yet that class disparity of material things did not keep them apart. One was spiritually rich while the other was materially rich. When Jesus died, him and another friend called Nicodemus still went boldly to Pilate (those who have killed their friend) to crave for his body knowing fully well he could be killed too. After all, those who called themselves his disciples had abduced and absconded into the oblivion; leaving the women to lament and wail. Pilate gave the corpse to them. They took it and wrapped it in a clean cloth, and then they buried it in his own new sepulcher which he had made for himself. I want you to learn a few things about loyalty and tell me if you are loyal. How many of us would risk our lives for our friend?

Years ago were two great friends who were loyal to each other. One of them owed the king some money, and he was supposed to pay it on a given date or die. His friend had a place where he thought he could go get the money to repay the king, but the king said he must bring a surety so in case he runs away; the surety would be his scapegoat. So his friend came and took his place in jail. Days passed, but he did not show up. The dateline was soon approaching. Minutes to the execution of his friend, he showed up to take his punishment because he could not get the money. The king decided to free both men. But before they left, the king asked the debtor’s friend how he could trust his friend that he was going to come back. Wasn’t him afraid of his life that his friend could abandon him there to skip town? He told the king that he has known him to be a loyal man.

Joseph or Arimathaea even gave his own sepulcher he had built for himself for Jesus to be buried in. He sacrificed the most precious thing he had for himself. Jesus to show us that loyalty to humanity gave his life so that we may live.

How many of you out there are ready to sacrifice for your friend? Are you loyal to your friend when he or she cannot even call you at certain hours? You will tell them you are sleeping. Can your friend beg for a ride at late hours without you grumbling? Can you help your homeless friend with a place to live without it being the talk of the town? How are you loyal to your wife when you do not even want to better her life?

Joseph and Jesus complimented each other. Jesus brought spirituality to the table and Joseph brought money. Just because Joseph gave Jesus money, he did not try to make him his footstool. Some of us want to make our friends slaves once we give them anything. How loyal are you? True friendship must be engrafted with loyalty.

Until then, learn loyalty and let it live.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk
“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Are you a Simon of Cyrene?

When Jesus was on his passion to Golgotha, he fell on his knees. Because he was whipped and scourged, his strength was almost finished. If the guards let him there; then, he will not be crucified in time to beat the Sabbath. So in man’s wisdom, they grasped Simon a Cyrenian whom they compelled to carry the cross of Jesus.

Simon was just coming from a trip when he met Jesus being led on the march to crucifixion. He had no business in it, yet he accepted willfully to carry the cross. There was a multitude behind Jesus, but no one volunteered to carry that cross. Instead the women as usual bewailed and lamented for the son of Man; while, the men followed from afar in their usual cowardice.

Consequently, Jesus did not carry his cross alone; therefore, you cannot carry your cross alone. The easiest thing to do nowadays is to retreat into ourselves or become reclusive like hermits when trials and temptations lurk our paths. Stop carrying your cross alone.

The name Simon in Hebrews was given only to male children. It means “he who hears”. I know with the way the world functions today it may look like no one is ready to hear your cries or feel your pain. But let me tell you this; this same Jesus, who died on the cross that Simon carried, is ready to amortize your pain.

However, let me ask you reading me now, how many people have you helped to carry their cross? How would you even carry their cross since you do not talk to strangers? Do you sit and watch people carry their cross to their death? Do you stand from afar to watch those who need your help plunge into suicide with their cross? Haven’t you seen a friend who needs you to help them carry their cross? Don’t you see a neighbor who needs your help in carrying their cross? You will start by knowing your neighbor first before you carry their cross. Don’t you think so?
Listen: it is a shameful and wicked thing to be happy alone. You are leaving many people to carry their crosses alone. The Lord is telling you today it is wrong; not even Jesus who died for all mankind carried his cross alone. Someone helped him along the way. Would you be that someone to carry someone else’s cross? Praise the Lord, then you are Simon the Cyrene.

Until then, help others to carry their cross.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Mamfe: The City of Tantalus

Long time ago lived a god called Tantalus. He was punished by the gods to live in a garden for trying to escheat death. The garden had everything, but he was deprived of everything. When he was thirsty and wanted to drink water, the water dried out, and if he was hungry and wanted to eat an apple, the tree sprung away from him. Tantalus lived in paradise but was dying of dearth. I hear the cries of women and children, young girls and young boys moaning for water and electricity. I hear the politicians singing lullabies to them. I hear SNEC and the government beating the drums of water, electricity and roads during elections. Surgeries cannot take place in our hospital because there is no electricity. I see the light is on and off. I see the kids go back to the river infested with crocodiles to fetch their drinking water from the same water where cows dumb their excreta. I see the people dehydrated. That is Mamfe; yes, our Mamfe!

We are wondering why the GCE results in Mamfe are going down, down, down and down. The kids cannot read when it is dark. Perhaps you want them to go back to using kerosene lamps, but the pumps cannot function well all the time because of lack of electricity.

On top of the dearth, sits the SNEC director and his workers enjoying what our parents fought for. That land is ours, and we must enjoy the fruits of its labor. That water is ours, so we must and should not be charged. Why do SNEC directors have water, but the rest of Mamfe has no water? I guess we are happy with Mamfe being tarred.

Mamfe has no road to the rest of Cameroon. It is an enclave! Are there young people in Mamfe? Is it the same Mamfe that defeated the Germans with their machine guns? So why are you leaving the SNEC people to treat you that way? If the masses cannot have water, the SNEC directors too should not have water. I say get up and let the government know you are alive. Young people, you must start to fight for help to come from outside.

I see my sisters and brothers stuck in mud for two weeks just for a 40 mile road. All the towns in the South West have roads in and out of them except Mamfe. I mean Mamfe of all towns. Yes, Mamfe the city of light! What an IRONY!

Here are the people of Mamfe, with all the politicians they have produced, yet Mamfe is still an inland. That woman who died because she could not be operated could have lived. That child who failed the GCE should not have failed if he or she had the light to read at night.

Mamfe, where are your young ones? What is their future? Learn from the Buea people. No one pays water there! SNEC has not succeeded there. Sometimes it takes violence to get the kingdom back. I mean until they bring you water.

As for you in the Diaspora, this is no more the time to go home to organize football matches. This is not the time to buy generators. This is the time to assist them in driving away the oppressor. This is the time of digging those pipes off the ground and driving those SNEC workers away. God hates injustice, and I hate injustice.

Tom was a young aspiring boy; the only son of his mother. He fell sick, but before they could carry him to Kumba, he died on the way because there were no roads. This is a fictitious story, but if you conduct a survey right now, you will find it a true story for many have experienced it. That is the calamity of Mamfe, our Mamfe.

Until then, Young people of Mamfe arise.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk.

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Sunday, March 7, 2010

The Pitfalls of Evolution

I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I believe that evolution can partially be fulfilled when mutation is within the same specie, but it does not cross mutate. I believe with the law of entropy; things are changing (evolving) to mediocrity or degeneration. Consequently, I reject the theory that man came from an ape. Evolution is not a totally scientific theory because science is not based on faith; it is based on empiricisms, and the four stages of empiricism are observation, hypothesis, experimentation and theory (OHET). For the theory of man evolving to an ape to have a base, it must be experimented which as we all know has never been experimented for lack of time as Darwin and his exponents claimed.

Some claim that the narratives on the creation of man in genesis chapter 1 and 2 and even the fall of man in chapter 3 are all mythic. Those who believe that a myth is a fictitious story are still right too, for that is what it is, but that is one definition. If we define myth as a story based on tradition, then the entire Bible is a myth since none today was present yesteryears to witness its writing. However, what differentiates the Bible or its content from other mythical stories is that its content is true; could be corroborated with living accounts. Science, archeology, history, internal and external evidences and the existence of lectionaries all prove that the Bible is infallible and thus true. If the story is true, then we can only start to read it literally before going literarily and practically (applying text to its context). It is absurd for anyone to start finding the meaning of a word connotatively when they cannot even decipher its denotative meaning.

Looking at the above bearings, we may want to look at the content of Genesis to see if it has the characteristics of a myth. Yes, it does because it was transmitted by oral tradition; it has a Deity (God) and legends (Adam and Eve). Yet it transcends a fictional story because what is narrated could actually still be experienced. The book of Romans says:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come (Rom 5:12-14).

Stories that were written as myth lived and ended with those periods and cannot replicate themselves. Therefore, the source of sin which is the fall of man as narrated in Genesis chapter 3 is not a myth because Romans corroborates it. It is nonfiction that was remitted by oral tradition. Just because something was orally transmitted from one generation to another does not make the story spurious.

The man in verse 12 is not a macrocosm but a microcosm. If it is a microcosm, then it cannot represent a group. The usage of the cardinal number /one/ as a noun or adjective denotes singularity of a thing or person. Thus, one man means there was only one man. Not to leave us in indecision, the writer follows with Adam as the apposition.

Genesis is very literal. There is nothing poetic about Genesis 3. What form of poetry would that be? Is it free verse? Not at all. It would have been closed to some narrative or lyric poem but it is not. That is a simple narrative about how sin entered into the world through the shortcomings of one man: Adam and life through one Man: Jesus.
Adam being used as a type of Christ does not make it a group. Does it mean Christ is a group too or a single person? Yes, since Adam is a type of group then Christ is an antitype of group Perhaps the simple narrative has evolved into a narrative poem who knows.

The fact that Origen said genesis 3was poetic does not mean he is right. What about the others who said the contrary?

While there is poetry in the Bible but Genesis 1-3 should be read literally. That may invite the question if the word firmament is literal. Such a question would be limited only to chapter 1 and not since the word firmament is mentioned only in chapter 1. Nonetheless, the word firmament was perhaps used as a synonym to the asteroid belt.

Man did not come from a monkey and will never come from a monkey. So the analogies you gave are inconsequential. The only logic we should adhere to right now is that, if man came from a monkey then other monkeys could still be turning to man until today. Sadly, they have not been. So the case is closed.

Some people believe that if chapter 1 and 2 are read literally then they will be contradicting each other. There are no contradictions in these passages. The problem here is one of paragraph patterns. One is in terms of chronology or logical order while the other is descriptive pattern. In chapter two, the paragraph is developed descriptively. The passages would have been contradictory if their development was sequential, yet that is not the case. It is synonymous to telling a story and digressing to inject an anecdote to buttress your point or to create some humor. Look at V 18 of chapter 2. The author narrates then suspends the narration about man in verses 19-20 to go to the animal kingdom. Then in verse 21 he comes back to give more details on how humanity was fully created.

Listen; if someone writes the same passage and develops them with different paragraph patterns, there will be an apparent contradiction due to placement of events. However, what is important is the existence of the facts. The topic sentences in chapter one and chapter two are the same. They talk of the creation of heaven and earth. If you look carefully in the way both passages are developed, you will realize that it is a problem of blueprints and not of facts. Furthermore, the narrations lack any versification; thus, cannot be considered poetic. Those narratives are more prosaic than poetic because they proclive more to the former with a plot (creation of humanity), characters (Adam and Eve and the animals), setting (comic; heave and earth), and a theme (creation) than to the latter.

Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability” (Abel David).
To put feathers on a lizard, for example, would require a favorable macromutation that would add a long strand of properly sequenced base pairs to the DNA. Though theoretically possible such a favorable macromutation has never
been observed. A step by step series of small mutations to gradually put
feathers on a lizard would also be implausible because partially formed feathers would be disadvantageous to the lizard. The needed macromutation with hundreds of properly sequenced base pairs would be as hyper-improbable as the chance formation of the protein we discussed above. We can confidently say that virtually all steps in the alleged macroevolution process would fail the UPM test. Evolution is falsified.
Bill Nugent.

My science is not that good, but I know falsehood no matter what scientific name it carries. One does not need to be a fossilist to know that the theory of macroevolution is not plausible. Not even one’s nescience of science should be a factor. That is lame excuse that the evolutionists “believe that humans descended from a particular species or primates, which are now extinct”. The excuse of extinction is to avert the empirical challenge of experimentation that authenticates a theory. It is not possible for primates to become humans.
“The evidence reveals that evolution has occurred but the jury is still out for me”. What evidence: assumptions, probabilities and inferences? Evolution has had enough time to prove its case. If it has not proven it and cannot prove it, then it is a spurious theory and should not be considered.

Every hypothesis must enter into the lab to be experimented. Experience thus far peters out macroevolution as a believable theory. If I don’t have scientific tools to prove that God exists, I can at least use my daily experiences and occurrences to prove that He does. It is thus swivel chair (retired) syllogism to posit that “oh if given some more time, it will occur”. Tell your kids that macroevolution is not plausible, and that it is all bundles of fabrication interwoven to extricate man from his responsibilities of piety.

Perhaps people are just falling in love with the word poetic or perhaps are merely discovering it, but if one had taken time to look at the characteristics of poetry and prose, he/she would have realized that the passages are more prosaic than poetic.

The allusion to Galileo again defeats their very theory. Galileo never said just believe that the earth was not stationary, but he used a telescope to observe the moon. In 1610 he made his observations and in 1725 James Bradley saw that the stars moved due to the earth’s rotation. That was within 115 years from the time of hypothesis to the time of experimentation.

However, since 1859 (the publication date of Darwin’s Origin of Species) in which he posited macroevolution with an ape mutating to a human being until today, we have not experienced anything. That is a period of 151 years from the time of hypothesis to that of experimentation. Considering that the average lifespan of man has been 365 years, at least if that was plausible, we would have experienced it. Bearing in mind that the average lifespan of humans is 70 years, then it is probable that we will never experience the cross mutation of species. In layman register, it is clear we will never see an ape change to a human being.

Evolution per the term can exist and does exist even until today, but in terms of transmutation; it is impractical, so it should not be believed. Consequently, those who believe in macroevolution act on presumption and faulty inference.

Until then, I am done with this futility.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).


Aeviternity has to do with perpetuity. Are we talking in this case about God’s nature or the world or what are we talking about? It is certain the present world will not live for ever. It is certain man will not live for ever since man dies. If man has to live for ever then it will be after Parousia. Thus we are left with one option; that of God. Does God have an end? Does He have certain things that He does not know; does He have certain things beyond his control?

Looking at IS 44:6 it would seem as though God has a place He ends: last because when you place competitors in numerical order from first to last, then you set an elasticity limit or indeed an end to the line. That will correlate with Rev 1:8. However, looking deeper into the verse, it would mean from the time of the beginning, he is the last God to exist. In that case, he has no end. Perhaps looking into the claims in Hebrews that “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb 13:8), then it is proper to talk of the aeviternity of God since Jesus is God.

Anything that came out of dust must return unto dust. The reason why man lives after Parousia is because the corruptible is changed to incorruptible and the mortal becomes immortal. Since the angels were amongst the host of heaven that was created, it is certain as heaven and earth will pass away the angels too will pass away.
In addition, since angels were created as ministering spirits (Heb 1:14) for God to serve man, it is sure that in a perfect world, we will no more need their services.
Besides, angels do not have aeviternity because they are made of clay. Lucifer being an angel was made of every precious stone (Ezek 28:13); consequently, every angel was made the same like Lucifer. Rather than take time to enumerate the precious stones, I used a geological generic term (clay) for all of them.

Here is where many go wrong. There is an image created there to provide guidance. Verse 12 talks well of Lucifer. If we consider the law of priority and proximity, the discourse on verse 12-15 talks of Lucifer (Satan), and not Babylon. So how can anyone argue that the passage is not talking about Lucifer? Isaiah was commissioned to take the imagery to the King of Babylon, but the image was that of Lucifer and not Babylon. Perhaps we should make some classification. There is a messenger (Isaiah), Recipient (King of Babylon) and Message (impending doom) delivered in a literary flavor of imagery. My questions to the Thomases would be:
1. Does this passage mention Lucifer (V 12)?
2. Is the passage for the King of Babylon (V 4)?
3. Is the message impending doom?
4. Is the usage of Lucifer an image?
Some have postulated that the term Lucifer was not referring to Satan it was referring to The King of Babylon.

As such we will revisit Ezek 28:13. So who does this verse refer to though: King of Babylon or Lucifer? If the King of Babylon as claimed, it means that human beings are made of precious minerals. Let us infer that since man comes from dust and unto dust shall return, then the first part could refer to the King of Babylon. What about the tabrets and pipes; do humans too have tabrets and pipes?

More so, others claim that the Bible says angels are depicted only as spirits. That is true but they are spirits with a physical nature too, yet the Bible gives us an inside into their nature. Look at Lk 24:37 and Heb 1:14. They have the same root word. They would refer to a spirit higher than man but lower than God. That can only refer to angels. Looking again further, angels were seen to appear as men. If not why would Hebrew say some have entertained angels without knowing (Heb 13:2). They did not know because they looked like men. Though they look like humans, they have spiritual abilities to appear and disappear. If Lucifer was an angel then he could have a nature reminiscent of all angels.

Just because they call Obama-Mr. President does not mean he is not human. Just because they call Lucifer-Satan which means an adversary does not mean he is not an angel. If he is an angel, and angels have a form different from humans, then he has a form, and that form is made of precious stones but with spiritual powers to appear and disappear.

Let us suppose that the passage about Lucifer was allegorical. It is still difficult to explain why anyone would not see that angels have a physical body too when they wanted to interact with humans. How would you describe the appearance of angels in Sodom and Gomorrah? Was that allegorical too? In what shape was the angel that spoke to Balaam? What about the angel that sat on an oak to speak to Gideon? Was the hand that the angel stretched forth to destroy Jerusalem allegorical too? Perhaps this is too much mysticism to a few, but to many it is just the rudiments of the bible that have eluded some of us.

This position is not neither based on “speculation” nor “bad hermeneutics” but on “a whole list of things” ingrained in the scripture. Some to contend the physical nature of angels claim that the Bible does not speak on angels. Then, we may not be reading the same Bible. The one I am reading gives at least ten instances where an angel appeared in concrete bodily form. It was not an anthropomorphic usage, allegoric, some extended metaphor or analogy. Suffer me this brief Biblical study on angels.

Gen 18:12. Abraham saw three men who happened to be angels.
Characteristic number one: angels could take human nature or structure.

Gen 19:1
Lot saw the angels coming; he rose up to meet them. I believe the sighting here was physical ands concrete and not some hallucination. If he saw them then they were not some subjective apparitions but concrete apparition. If they were concrete then they were physical.
Characteristic number two: Angels are physical beings too.

Num 22:23
It was no abstraction. The ass saw the angle standing. The ass is not a spiritual being and so could not have seen a spiritual being. If the ass saw the angel then it was \physical that is why the ass saw it. The angle is Physical; thus, correlates with Characteristic number 2.

Judges 2:1
The angel spoke. Speech is totally a human affair. Animals and birds hum and mutter sounds, but humans speak. That is one characteristic of language.
Characteristic number three. Angels speak.

Judges 6: 11-22
The angels spoke to Gideon, and he spoke back.
Characteristic number four 4: angels can hold conversations.

Judges 13:5
The angel gave instructions.
Characteristic number five: angels are intelligent.

Zech 1: 11-12
The angle preyed to intercede.
Characteristic number six: angels have compassion.

Lk 1:11-19.
Zechariah saw the angel, and the angel spoke to hm. This connects with characteristic two and three.

Some have even claimed that: “Again, being visible does not necessarily mean something is physical”. Anything that is visible has the ability to be seen and thus has material structure. Therefore, if angels could be seen; then, they have material structure too. This does not mean that they are always in a physical body. They were physical and could take human bodies to look entirely human. That is why people entertained them before realizing they were angels (Heb 13:2). If they did not have human bodies and human structure, then those who received them would have known they were unnatural.

Therefore, God has no beginning and has no end. He neither changes in nature nor in Spirit. He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. All other things that have a beginning will have an end according to God’s schedule.
Until then, over to you.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk.

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Is it Biblical for Christians to do In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)?

A Christian sister used In Vitro Fertilization to bear her first child because she was nearing menopause without a child. The church dis...