Friday, August 31, 2012

Should Christians Do Anal Sex?

"P.A., should Christians do anal sex; what if that is what the woman wants though?" 

In 2004, in the nursing home I visited regularly was a 72 year old white lady. The week before I had asked them what they hated the most in the nursing home. The majority said it was loneliness. So that week I asked them what they regretted the most in life. When it reached her turn, she looked at me and smiled. I foresaw some mischief, and lo and behold it was. She said that what she regretted the most was having anal sex. “Now I have to be wearing these diapers at 72.” She jokingly lamented. It is said that ¾ of American women have tried anal sex, and some actually prefer it in their pursuit of masochism. Some do it for religious purposes. For example, in June 16, 2011, Abdallah Al- Khalif encouraged Muslims who wanted to do suicide bombing and fatwa to allow themselves to be sodomized so that their anuses will be widened enough to carry explosives. Others say that it is what the woman wants. The adult industry does it for women who want to make quick money. Why then do people do it, and does the Bible condemn it?  I will use  logic, biology, science and the bible to answer this palaver so pay attention.  
Logically, one will question why anyone who says he loves someone will want to inflict pain on them while having sex. Love is the bond in spirit that is physically administered in friendship.  Isn’t sex for love? I don't know friends who enjoy seeing their friends cry. What love causes such pain and tears? I don't know lovers who enjoy inflicting pain on each other. Men have argued that some women only prefer anal. Simply because the woman wants something does not make it right. Any sex that causes pain is a deviation. It is not just experience (tales from women) or logic, but even science is against anal sex.
           Biologically, the anus was not made for entering; it was made as an exit. What comes out of it is not as large and hard as a large  erected penis people try to put in it. When forced too hard, there is anal fissure as the anus tears because the sphincters (o ring between the rectum and the anus) are wounded as they have gone beyond their elasticity limit, and this causes bleeding. The bleeding is what facilitates the transfer of HIV/AIDS and other STDs because the fresh blood is driven into the blood stream. The risk for diseases is higher for the receptive partner (woman) than the insertive partner (man) because the recipient acts as a depot during anal sex. .
            Naturally, the anus is a very dirty place harboring too many diseases but because of the notion that the anus is bacteriologically cleaner than the mouth, people think it is better. However, although the mouth has about 100 million bacteria, they are naturally neutralized by enzymes from our saliva or stomach. Unlike the mouth, the bacteria from the anus are very harmful in themselves and can easily be transmitted from penetrator to recipient. The anus can only serve as an intake when it is receiving treatment like suppository or enema. Other than that, it is an abomination and transgression of the law.  
Biblically, while the Bible does not mention anal sex directly, it evokes and condemns the concept. In Leviticus, the Bible says “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Lev 18:22). The only way men and men could lie together was by using the anus; thereby, doing the abomination (disgusting thing) by violating the natural law of sex. This violation of the law (transgression) is sin because if a man was to lie with a woman, he will insert his penis into the woman’s vagina, but if a man was to lie with another man as he does with a woman, he will insert his penis into his anus. That is the violation of the natural law; consequently, disgusting act before God that should be rewarded with capital punishment (Lev 20:13).
Anal sex could not have been such a pleasurable act for God to reward it with death. When the men of Sodom requested Lot to bring out his male guests so they could sexually abuse them, Lot instead proposed his daughters as replacement because it was unnatural for such an act-wickedly (Gen 19:4-8). To an extent, it was wickedness (being evil). If we use the presupposition or circular logic, then we will see that the Bible is against anal sex. God does not like wickedness. Anal sex is wickedness. Therefore, God does not like anal sex. That is as simple as it could go.  
The Bible tells us about a Levite who went to Bethlehem, Judah to adjure his whorish wife to return home. After staying there for about six days, he rejected the last plea of his father in-law to keep spending the night there, so he decided to go and night befell them. They struggled and reached Gibeah in Benjamin. They tried to find a place to spend the night, but no one will take them until an old man from Ephraim who was living in Gibeah took them home. 
While they were enjoying themselves with the hospitality he had provided, some of the people termed “sons of Belial” came to the owner of the house and demanded he brings out the man (not his concubine), so they would have sex with him. The host tried to reason with them that he will prefer to give them his virgin daughter and the stranger’s concubine just so they leave the man (the stranger) alone and avert the vile act. That means, anal sex is a vile (disgraceful and immoral) act. The man took his concubine and gave to them, and they raped her overnight until she died (Judges 19:1-27). You can read the rest of the story in chapter 22. Rather than accept them to have an unnatural sex (anal), he surrendered his concubine to them because anal sex is disgraceful and unnatural.
When men sleep with men and women with women, they exchange the natural use for the unnatural for the just recompense of their error. If anal sex was acceptable in the Bible, then the Apostle Paul will not call it error (straying away) and unnatural use (Rom. 1: 26-27). Men who sleep with other men defile (abuse) themselves (I Tim 1:10; I Cor 6:9). Since when did abuse then become normal and acceptable in Christendom? Since when did and does God tolerate abuse of others? Shouldn't we as Christians love our neighbors as we love ourselves? If we practice anal sex, we abuse the receiver; thus, we show no love for them. It is an abuse of the other person, especially as they undergo serious pain.
I have not seen a single woman or worst still man who said there was no pain in having anal sex. Anal sex is painful. That is why even in prostitution circles, anal sex costs more. 
In 2008, one of my students was sitting with one of her buttocks. Methought it was just her usual histrionics to attract attention, so I asked her to sit properly. She said “Mr. Ayuk, I can’t.” I asked her why she couldn't. She retorted “you don’t want to know.” I said, "yes, I do! What wearies you, wearies me!" She said, “Fine then. I took it from the back. It is killing me. I will never ever let no man f..k me from the back.” Now my ears have overheard, so I just went back to work with no comments. Kids always ask me if I like women. Well, I do like women and the front door, so I never fantasize or dream one day of passing through the back door. Those who want to grow old wearing diapers can continue with their backdoor policy. I am also aware that a heavy man on a skinny little girl could spell danger like in the video below. 

Until then, anal sex is a disgraceful and abominable act condemned in the Bible.

St Arrey of Ntenako. 
Copyright © 

Please make a donation to further the work if you think I just saved your anus!  

“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). "It is not how well you know a person; it is how well you treat them that they will live longer and happier with you." Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

If a man seized and married his best friend's wife, does God consider them married?

Marie-Anne Thiebaud and Robert "Mutt" Lange

Shania Twain and Frédéric Thiébaud
When I see dalliances pell-mell like these by supposed Christians and pastors, I wonder what evil I did to my parents that they did not name me Angel Gabriel or Angel Michael. The acts of these people seem like they had a heart transplant with Satan’s blood. Surprisingly, I see them on Facebook still talking “God.” I know we are saved by grace, but grace does not exempt us from good works, to say the least! I will use only the Bible to answer this question by horizontally interpreting the Old Testament (OT) with the New Testament (NT).
In my days as a preacher and teacher, I have heard and seen best friends snatch their friend’s wives or husbands from afar. However, I have never seen someone who was close to me. I saw it in 2007 when a friend of mine’s best friend snatched her husband. Mado was brought to the US by Pat. Things did not go well for Mado, so Pat invited her to spend 5 days with them. Mado did not only seize the opportunity, but she seized Pat’s husband. Mado and Pat’s husband Patrick now live in Missouri in the same house her best friend lived as husband and wife. The next one was Pastor Billong who seized his best friend’s wife. It was also a similar scenario as Billong was brought to America with the help of his friend. One day, he went to South Africa for a conference for two weeks. One week, four days, he called the wife and told her that he was coming home. She told him that she had decided to change her life, so she would call him back. That elusive call did not come. When the other pastor came, his wife and Billong had sold `1and moved out of the condo, and they have bought another house. He met a Mexican who had bought the Condo, and he spared him two weeks to gather himself.
Housemaids are good at snatching the husbands of their mistresses and later marrying them. Many stars like Marie-Anne Thiebaud seized Robert "Mutt" Lange from Shania Twain- her best friend and boss. In her desire to find healing, Shania fell in love with Marie-Anne’s estranged husband Frédéric. Shania and Frédéric finally got married in January 20011, leaving the two cheaters- unfaithful husband and wife to form the couple of the unfaithfuls.
At least one thing everyone will agree with me is that divorce is not a good phase in life, no matter who faces it. God too even hates it (Mal 2:16). The post affects are cumbersome, yet does it mean that because God hates divorce, He has prohibited remarriage? Even if you killed a man and took away his wife, there could be marriage if the two enter into a covenant. Their past does not factor into the covenant. It is merely remarriage. 
            Many people are confused, and they help to confuse others about digamy also called deuterogamy. Contrary to what people say that the Bible prohibits digamy, we see that neither the OT nor the NT reveals so. The Bible does not even prohibit divorce. The only occasion where there was no bargain for divorce at all was if the woman became the man’s wife by rape. If a man raped a woman, and she was forced upon him as a wife, he could never divorce her (Deut 22:28-29). The Americans say, " what's all that marrying your rapist?" Cultures were different, my friends. However, there are two factors that could allow divorce: infidelity (Mt 19:9) and desertion (I Cor 7:14-15). God approves deuterogamy.  Don’t panic. Follow me slowly.
In Deuteronomy 21:10-14, God tells the Israelites that if they captured a beautiful female as a prisoner of war whom they love as wive, they should take her home, shave her head, pare her nails, take off her captive clothes  and let her stay in their house and mourn their parents for a month. After the mourning period is over, they can start to have sex with her as a wife. However, if they happen to lose interest in the woman, then they should let her go without treating her as an object or merchandize. Therefore, God did not accept that a man treats a woman as an inferior being, but he did accept that if couples lost love, they could part company.
In Deut 24:1-4, it even states it clearly that if a man loses love for the wife, he should give her divorce papers. If she has been lawfully divorced, “she may go and be another man's wife”. That is, she is free to remarry. If her second husband divorces or dies, her first husband cannot remarry her (Deut 24:1-4). Thus, digamy was against the same or previous spouse and not against future spouses. Examples that God abhor are Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton; Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner; Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee; Eminem and Kim Scott-Mathers; Marie Osmond and Stephen Craig and many other examples who went back to remarry their exes.  
During the mosaic era, the law required adulterers to be put to death (Lev 20:10), but during the epoch of grace, Christ said and says that adulterers should be forgiven. In Jer 3: 8-20, there is an image of an adulterous Israel who is divorced. Her divorce did not still discourage Judah her sister. Instead, God asks Israel to return from her adulterer; thus, forgiving and giving her another chance with the only condition that she repents of her sin. That indicates that although adultery is a grievous sin, yet it is forgivable. 
Therefore, as much as we would want to have those who snatched our spouses to be punished to death, the Bible does not show us so. If they repent with the same snatched spouse, enter into a new covenant between them, I believe they are forgiven. God will still recognize them as married. If God will not recognize them as married, then adultery is an unpardonable sin.
We will even be surprised to hear that God had asked Hosea to love Gomer: the former wife of a friend who was an adulterer (Hosea 3:1-5). She was divorced. She repented of her dalliance but was not yet taken back by the husband.  He is forewarned that Gomer will be adulterous, but she must still be loved. That depicted God’s relationship with Israel who was loved by God but still worshiped other Gods.  As much as we may want to condemn those who commit adultery and snatch the spouses of their friends, this analogy reveals we cannot do that because God does not look at them that way. They have sinned. That is true, but there is still forgiveness. Grace will superabound when and where sin abounds (Rom 5:20).
            Despite the fact that the degamists who snatched the spouses of their friends or even enemies are forgiven, they still have to ask for forgiveness from those whom they have hurt to hoard heavenly blessings. They must drop their gifts at the altar to make peace (Mt 5:23-24), else whatever service or good deed they do is regarded as filthy rags (Is 64:4). Since their sin is a non-restitutionable offense, the only decorous thing they can do is at least ask for forgiveness from the person whose spouse they snatched. It is heartless to just go as if nothing has happened because God has forgiven you.
In Hosea 2:2 we saw God instead adjuring the children to plead with their mother to abandon her adultery rather than repudiate her. No doubt, she will be abandoned if she refuses to repent, but until such time, forgiveness still flows. And, any time she will repent and forsake her evil ways, she will obtain mercy. Remember that Jesus although accepts divorce, does not encourage it (Mt 5:32). If a wife leaves her husband to marry another man (bigamy), she commits adultery only when that husband is still alive (Rom 7:2-3). 
It is important to understand that in this case, it will not be physical death as marriage is a covenant between two parties. If one person leaves, they are considered dead since sex is like the blood on which the covenant reposed. If without the shedding of blood there was no remission of sins, there was no consummation of marriage without sex. Marriage is the covenant in blood sexually administered. Therefore, the adulterer kills himself or herself and is only resurrected back into the covenant when they repent. If they do not repent, eventhough they are alive, they are considered dead and the other partner if free to remarry.

Until then, eventhough a man snatches his friend’s wife; God will still consider them married if they repent.

St, Arrey of Ntenako.

“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). "It is not how well you know a person; it is how well you treat them that they will live longer and happier with you." Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Should the Woman Be The Head of Household If She Is The Bread Winner?

No one can pretend there is joy in a broken marriage, an unhappy home or a dysfunctional family. Marriages have gone kaput, and dreams have gone aflame because of the conflict between husband and wife jostling for the position of Head of Household (HOH). Many have argued that the person who is making more money or who is working should be the HOH. Today, I will define certain words and show the Bible’s position on who should be the HOH. This poses problems only when the woman is married. In single parent homes, the parent is automatically the HOH. We do not consider homosexual homes as households. A sand castle is to a real home what a lesbian home is to a heterosexual home because the foundation of a real home is built on one man and one woman or one man and many wives. Although homosexuals live married lives, they are not different from illegal immigrants in a country. They lack the proper credentials to live as husband and wife. That does not mean that I am against gay marriage. If you want to even marry a dog, that is your right, but I am not obliged to consider it marriage. Concubinage homes are not households either; they fall in the same category with the homosexual ones. A concubinage home is to a real home what a toy gun is to a real gun.  A single parent HOH is an unusual HOH as the Bible says that it is not good that a man should live alone. 
Some people will say that the Bible is antiquated. It is preposterous to consider the Bible as outdated or a Stone Age book. By virtue of the fact that it is still used today and interpreted in many more languages shows its relevance and impossibility to be redundant. While cultures were of a particular group of people in the past, the concepts are as relevant as any other concept. Surprisingly, you still read and apply the philosophies of Aristotle (384) and Plato (428 BC) who came before Jesus and the Bible.  
 The reason why homosexual homes are not considered as matrimonial homes is because marriage is between a male and a female and nothing less and nothing more. No one is ruling and no one is following. They are either two males or two females. Our people say that if anyone thinks he or she is leading, but there is no one following them behind, he/she is merely taking a walk. In leadership, there must be a leader and at least a follower.  That does not mean people are not free to marry as they want. The concubinage home is more an illegal union because they are stealing. They want to live like married couples but do not want to fulfill the requirements. It is worth noting that a concubinage home is not a Common Law Marriage (CLM).
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.
The argument that the HOH has evolved is bunkum. The evolution of races and people is unfounded because there is no mutation per se. Even in evolution, there is no permanent change in DNA (mutation) as no monkey actually changed into a human. If there is any mutation, there is one within the species. In this context, society transforms and develops with time but not the individuals per se. The human body has remained the same as men are men and women are women. The physiology and anatomy of both sexes despite time has remained unchanged. Furthermore, the concepts about marriage transcend cultures and time. Thus, the theory of mutation is still untenable.  The fact that people still cite Aristotle and Plato supports my theory about the non-redundancy of the Scripture. 
The worries that some men have maltreated their wives or wives have misbehaved in matrimonies are called abuses of power. Why don’t you blame God for creating Sex? Why don’t you blame God for giving you eyes, so you can see your wife and kids even though you use those same eyes sometimes to look at other women? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we are enlightening people to beware of the abuses of power. No man should decide what happens in a woman’s body, but the woman’s body remains the female body with the same anatomy and physiology. Whether values erode or improve, it does not change the physical characteristics of the human body. 
People compare medieval times with modern times without taking cognizance of the epochs. It was different from nowadays as now thanks partially to feminism, women have more rights. Freedom is never given to the oppressed, so the oppressed must rise up to take it. When women began rising up to take their rights, some went overboard. While feminism opened the eyes of many women, it also brought challenges to men. Therefore, feminism is neither all bad nor is it all good. 
If the woman is HOH, she becomes the head the same way the man is head. We have had precedence in the Bible with the daughters of Zelophehad who fought for filial female rights of inheritance (Numbers 27:6-11). In their household, they did not have a son nor were they married. To be head of household is not based on bread winning ability but on natural appointment. Leadership is not the same as bread winning; else the richest people in every country would be the presidents or prime ministers in those countries. God ab initio after the fall, appointed the man to be head of household (Gen 3:16), but He did not appoint him based on his bread winning skills because at the time of the appointment, God provided everything to both Adam and Eve.  Rather, he appointed the wife as a helpmeet (helper or co-breadwinner) to the husband (servant). The woman was to help him in tending the Paradise as he was the servant of God. Even in the presence of a man, the woman could still be the helpmeet (bread winner) as we see with Deborah. If leadership was the problem, then Deborah should and would not have led. Yet at a time when men had their tails wrapped between their legs, she took the challenge and led the army of God. But before she did it, she asked Barak  (a man) to go with her. Isn’t she HOH of Israel? She was head of HOH because there were no men.
While Hannah nagged God more than she nagged her husband, she was still seeking his opinion on how to close their lacuna of sterility. 
            There are strict conjugal rights that we must consider. Those rights are layered on mutual submission (Eph 5:21). The word “submitting” means to subject one's self, obey, yield to one's admonition or advice. In that way, nothing is done from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regarding one another as more important than yourselves (Philippians 2:3).
Although there is a leader; man, decisions are by mutual consent because in direction and good advice there is development and progress (Prov 11;4; 24:6). Since the time where humans rejected theocracy and monarchy, one man style leadership has never been a good one. Even with churches that practice the church polity of episcopalism, we always see a mélange of Presbyterianism and congregationalism. 
If neither the wife nor the husband has rights over their bodies, and that they must abstain from sexual intercourse only by mutual consent (I Cor 7: 1), then we will doubt that it was different in any other field especially because they were to leave their parents to cleft to their spouse where they become one in flesh (Gen 2:24). 
When the Bible talks about the woman being submissive to the husband (Eph 5:21-23, 33), it is not talking about acquiescence. You should remember that in verse 21, they were to mutually submit. If they both mutually submit, then it is superfluous or redundant for the woman to be required extra submission as it is not needed. What it is saying in that verse is that, the woman should show respect to the decision that the house leader has made. Even though military leaders consult each other, there is only one who orders” fire” or “cease fire.” Two he-goats cannot drink from the same pot else they will lock horns. Many cooks spoil the soup, and there cannot be two captains in the same boat. Why should there be two heads of household as with homosexuals'?
It is for the man’s own good to consult his wife for decisions, and it is for the woman’s own good to respect the outcome of the decision. It is not based on bread winning. At different times in the Bible, men and women were bread winners HOH. When a man is given that little respect as head of household with a little garnishing of open legs, the woman can have her way. She can possess the kingdom as we saw with Empress Wu Zetian of China , Catherine II of Russia, Esther or Abigail. Abigail’s name means “my father is joy”. Where the man was lacking in wisdom or guidance, she jumped in to make the difference (I Sam 25:3). 
Nonetheless, if a man has problems that his wife is making more money than him or that his wife has a job, and he does not have, it is not because it is the biblical position; it is merely that it is his ego. It is an exhibition of the work of the flesh in him (Gal 5: 19-21). He will need to put away the old man. There is no problem with having a stay-home-dad just as there is a stay-home-mom depending on whose bread winning skills will help the home to survive better.
There is nowhere in the Bible showing that the man must be the sole bread winner. One passage frequently cited to sustain that argument is 1 Tim 3:4. The word “ruleth” means to preside over by caring for and giving attention. That is why the preceding sentence wonders how he will “take care of the house of God” if he cannot “rule” over his own house. The problem only arises when the woman who is the bread winner treats her husband as a beggar or servant. It is the same too with the husband who is the bread winner. In short, no one should treat another person as inferior simply because they have a superior financial, economic position or even wield more power than their spouse. 
As with everything, the exponents must keep the vices and excesses as they may deviate from the original intent of the technocrats. That has been the case as many western (especially American) women have won the feminist battle, but they have lost that of keeping a home. Marriage has become a reclusive turncoat as testified by the number of divorces and broken homes. That does not mean all marriages are broken by the excess of feminism; however, it is one of the underlying factors. When a woman starts saying it is her body, so she has the right to use it as she wants, she leaves the man no other option but to seek solace in strange arms. Same too when a man does not procure love, acceptance, and value; the three basic necessities of human relationship, the woman though married still finds herself lonely where she transforms her initial shadows into her reality and her theobroma cacao becomes the elephant meat.   
In mutual consideration, both the man and the woman must understand that the woman is a weaker vessel (I Pet 3:7) but not inferior. The difference between being weak and being inferior is that you do not show honor to anything inferior. On the contrary, you hold with care that which is weak, so it does not break or faint. Such, should be the treatment of women as they show respect to their husbands, no matter their financial or societal status.  Although the wife may be a bread winner, she cannot be the head of household if she is married or is in a heterosexual relationship. .

Until then, the husband is the head of household, and the wife is the assistant.

St Arrey of Ntenako.

“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). "It is not how well you know a person; it is how well you treat them that they will live longer and happier with you." Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Did Trump create a new word?

The verb /foist/ exists. It means to pass something as if it is genuine or real or impose a fake thing as genuine. The word /foister/ doe...