One hypothesis to explain the reason behind the act of sharing possessions equally among the early church:

By Aubrey AJ Moeketsi


Perhaps one of the signal achievement of the early church was their ability to master the art of bringing everybody to the same level on a social strata, no one had more possessions than the other among them for they “had all things in common” (source: Acts 4:32). this more than anything else, served to create a strong social cohesion among early believers for people were on equal footing with no one more privileged than other.

the question then becomes, if the early church did it, why isn’t the 21 century church following in their footsteps, more pressing to this is the question of intent & motive; why did they opted for this approach. what really motivated them to sell even their houses, was it only a matter of addressing social inequalities in church or was there another reason behind?

Against this backdrop, i propose to present my hypothesis to try and explain the reason behind this act, trying to unravel the mystery as to why the early church did what they did and to attempt to answer the burning question;  “should it be done in the today” , if so how can it be achieved.

*i just want to put a disclaimer out there that these are just my thoughts on the matter, I do not purport to present new dogma, i do not claim to possess the ultimate perspective, i stand corrected*

The state of the early church:

The early church was a very progressive movement. At no point where they ever stagnant, in a short space of time they had moved from 12 membership church to close to five thousand (5000) members (source: Acts 4:4). under the new testament, its the book of Acts that gives us a clear picture of the worldview of the early church. We get to learn about their conduct, believe systems and ideologies. We primarily learn about their achievements along the way, as well as setbacks they encountered. above everything else, the church in Acts serves as a blueprint for us to follow today.

Members of the early church took a decision to sell their earthy possessions for a noble cause, “to distribute the money equally to anyone who had need…” (source: Acts 4: 35). if you had land, you sold it to meet the needs of those who may be in want among you. this of cause was a very gallant act on the part of the church as “there were no needy persons  among them..” The mandate was clear, let’s all be equal. if anything we need to commend and celebrate the early church for this act of generosity. with the state the church is in today, i feel that perhaps we need to consider adopting the same stance  and apply this to the church today in an attempt to try and curb this colossal social inequality that exist among brethren today.

They were not coerced;

No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they owned…” (Source: Acts 4: 32)

There is empirical evidence from scripture to support the view that the believers were not coerced into giving. It needs to clearly stated that this was not done because it was an order from the Apostles, there was no council that convened and decided that this should be law. The people at will decided to sell their possessions to help meet the needs in church. Even those in leadership did so too, a figure by the name of Joseph, an Apostle, sold his own field and brought the money at the feet of the Apostles. There is no documented proof to state that this was a binding law that forced the early church to comply. This becomes more evident when peter was pronouncing judgment on both Ananias and his wife Sapphira (source: Acts 5:4).

What really motivated this act?

I discovered that there were two primary reasons why they did it;

No.1 brotherly love

So strong was the brotherly love among them that they didn’t want to look different one from the other. It is recorded that they all were in one mind and heart (source: 4:32). This connotes the fact that the act of giving was a corporate decision ignited by brotherly love. This act made a huge impact around the community where they were staying. It won them the love and respect of the people in broader community, and the Lord “added to their number daily those who were being saved”

No. 2 the impending demise of the world

the early church held a strong view that Jesus was to come soon, they literally expected him to return during their life time. when the people received the message and believed, they saw no need to keep holding on to their earthly possessions for Jesus was to come anytime, and so the early church embraced this belief that Lord was to appear any minute and they therefore shared everything they owned equally and waited for the Lord to appear.

if you read (Acts 4:34), many of them even sold their houses. whenever people sell their habitations, that’s normally when they are relocating, or have found something better. the believers  sold their houses and stayed in one place, expecting the lord to return. I’m of a position that this belief, above everything else was the primary reason why they corporately decided to sell their earthly possessions.

The logic was basically as follows; If Jesus is coming any minute from now, why go to University, why open a business, why get married and start a family, why own property.

At one point, the Lord had to inspire persecution against the church so as to move them from Jerusalem to other parts of the world, for though Jesus was coming, the gospel was still “to be preached to every creature, “and not only just the house of Israel. If the persecution didn’t take place, we most probably wouldn’t have received the gospel today.

Why not today:

The early church did it, so why don’t we follow suit and do likewise.

Let me tell you why this isn’t a good idea, and why we shouldn’t do it today. I do not believe that the church today has to sell its possessions in order to meet the needs in the house of the lord. I certainly do not support the logic that we have to sell our business and properties in an effort to help curb necessities in the body of Christ. Shouldn’t we look after the needy? Of cause we should, this is one of the greatest marks of Christianity. The issue is not to desist from helping the needy, but the approach we choose to adopt in the process. If helping the needy is the goal, then I believe that today there are much better avenues of going about it without having to loose properties. I will engage some of these avenues in my next blog. The wisdom of scripture holds; “if you have two coats/garments, give one to your brother” (Source; Luke 3:11).the Lord is saying; you don’t have to sell all your coats to help meet the needs of your brother, give him an extra one.

Perhaps a more critical question to ask is; if we adopt the same stance as the early church and sell everything we own in order to meet current needs in church, what happens when all the proceeds from items sold are depleted? More so, should the LORD tarry his coming yet again, what will become of us after we have sold everything we owned and are left with nothing but each other in a secluded Area. Let me attempt to answer that for you. The first thing that will happen is that the people will become disillusioned with the leadership; the leaders will be blamed for the loss, and when that happens, one or two things will follow. If lawsuits do are not instated, the people will take matters into their own hands and stone the leadership for misleading them. So, let’s take care of the needy among us, but let’s adopt better approaches in the process.

The church today:

“Occupy till I come…” (Luke 19:13)

At one point, both Baptists and Pentecostals actually held a view that the pursuit of education was worldly, and those who pursued it were full of the world and they needed to repent. The church believed that all you ever needed was nothing but the bible. Over time, that view evaporated from the church and more saints today have come to understand the significance of paring education plus Christ in order to be effective in the work of the kingdom.

I’m glad that today believers have also embraced the mandate from the lord that we ought to occupy till he comes. The lord says to us, in my absence, “Occupy till I come…”.The word occupy speaks of; inhibiting, to lodge, to dwell, to conquer, to subjugate.

The antonym thereof is to vacate. In other words, whilst away, the lord expects the church to “occupy till he comes”. Don’t vacate but conquer and subjugate, dwell on earth and occupy till I come back to get you. Be ready for my return, keep your garments clean, anticipate my arrival at all times. Don’t let the cares of this world lead you astray, but in the meantime take territory, occupy, rule till I come.

My position is simple; “let’s not Vacate but Occupy…”



Dispelling Animal Homosexuality Myth

by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

The following article is adapted from the author’s recently published book, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement.

In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1] turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:
1. Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
2. Homosexuality is irreversible;
3. Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.

Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.[3]

Animals Do It, So It’s Natural, Right?

The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

– Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
– Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
– Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
– Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
– Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

1. There is no “homosexual instinct” in animals,
2. It is poor science to “read” human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

There Is No “Homosexual Instinct” In Animals

Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” “filicide” and “cannibalism” are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.

— Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts

To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal’s instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal’s behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]

At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal’s instinctive impulses result in cases of animal “filicide,” “cannibalism” and “homosexuality.”

— Animal “Filicide” and “Cannibalism”

Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving “mixed signals” from their instincts:

Most female cats can switch between “play mode” and “hunt mode” in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of “hunt mode” may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the “hunting” instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue…. Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5]

Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:

Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.[6]

— Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States

To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.

Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man’s disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They “borrow,” so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.

— Explaining Seemingly “Homosexual” Animal Behavior

Bonobos are a typical example of this “borrowing.” These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:

There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo’s answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter’s mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, “When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.”[8]

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance–in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]

Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent…. And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]

Other animals engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

— “Homosexual” Animals Do Not Exist

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]

Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]

It Is Unscientific To “Read” Human Motivation
And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior

Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often “read” human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:

The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal’s motivation he is applying human psychodynamics–a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[13]

Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:

Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure….The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.[14]

Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:

Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena….We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer–in both the gathering and interpretation of data–come to the forefront in this situation…..With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)….With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.”[15]

Dr. Bagemihl’s interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, “an imprint of St. Martin’s Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books.”

Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man

Some researchers studying animal “homosexual” behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man’s nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.

Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:

Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. … Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16]

Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal “homosexuality” will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:

It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is “against nature”: the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.[17]

Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:

For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]

The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:

It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. …. The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19]

The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man’s rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.

Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man’s rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

From Science To Mythology

Dr. Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:

Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality…[21]

To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of “explanation” or “cause” or “rationale.” In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds…[22]

Most Native American tribes formally recognize–and honor–human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the ‘two-spirit’ person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The ‘two-spirit’ is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes …. And often engaging in same -sex relations. … In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or “supernatural” two-spirit(s)….A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits–creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time–were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer.[23]

Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today’s homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace “a new paradigm:”[24]

Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle–back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions….Biological Exuberance is…a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable.[25]


In summary, the homosexual movement’s attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.

Image  —  Posted: March 21, 2014 in Scrap-Homosexuality

This Valentine what to get your Man

This Valentine what to get your Man

By Aubrey Moeketsi

Ok, we all know that Valentine’s Day is certainly a holiday that’s geared toward women; it’s that time of the year when men are expected to reach down deep inside their pockets to please their. Look, we understand all that;  however, I feel that it’s a new day, times has changed, valentine should  no longer be all about women  and what they’ll be getting from their partners. After all its valentine’s day, a day for two not one. So, getting your man a gift this valentine might just be the best thing you would ever do for your relationship. Studies shows that men seldom forget women, who, often times spoil them rotten, so, surprise him, spoil him, and give him a valentine he won’t forget.

Choose a Valentine’s Day gift for him that suits his lifestyle and tastes. Whatever his personality, choose from a variety of gifts that he can use at home, in the office or on the playing field. be creative about it. If you not sure ask him, but don’t be too obvious. It’s important that whatever gift you choose is truly sentimental and conveys your appreciation for your man.

What to get your man!

Here are some of the timeless suggestions, take it from a dude, it works!


Remember that old saying: “The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach.” A lot of ladies underrate the power of cooking your man his favorite homemade dish. Set up a romantic meal. If you want to go all-out on food, make your guy a beautiful Valentine’s Day dinner. Send the children away to their grandparents just for a day. After-all this is your day with your man.  “Presenting your Man with food is a tangible demonstration that you care”.


Expensive would be ideal, however work within your budget. Cologne is a classic Valentine’s Day present, so remember to get him his favorite perfume, you are allowed to be creative about it, if you want try something different, just remember to stay close to what prefers.


As stated before, dudes are not the same, so if your man is a book worm, then get him a good book. If he is big on poetry then either get him a poem-book or take him to poetry sessions, this would really be nice especially since its valentine’s day.


Watches range in various sizes, types and prices. Choose a watch that suits his lifestyle. If he spends a lot of time in the water, choose a waterproof or water-resistant watch which can be submerged. If he likes military gear, choose a military watch or a watch with a camouflaged band. For the athlete, choose a watch made to survive knocks and scrapes sustained in rough athletic play. Give the businessman a watch that clearly displays the date as well as the time.  Every time he looks at the watch, you can be sure that he will always remember who bought him… :)


If you’re dating a dude who’s really into music, get him a present that’s in line with his interests; get him a jay z CD if he’s into hip hop.  It would be a nice and thoughtful gesture to get him a musical instrument if he’s one of those who can play an instrument. If it were me, I’d really appreciate a piano/keyboard, a base or an acoustic guitar….. 


 “Couples, who play Xbox together, stay together

  -Mo :)

Look, before you start complaining, please note that “all” dudes today play games….ayt!! . You got to understand that, Gaming is to us what shopping is to yall, so instead of complaining that he does not have time for you, grab a console and join in.  Besides, Gamers Are Low Maintenance, much as gaming enthusiasts enjoy going out on a date, he will have no qualms with staying in. A cozy at-home date ordering takeaways and curling up on the couch is right in his comfort zone.

So, as you work through your valentine list for your man, remember to get him a nice game, you can get him Fifa14, or Call of Duty Ghosts etc. Trust me on this one, I got your back, you won’t go wrong.


So there you go, forget yourself once on this Valentine’s Day and put your man and his needs 1st. you will forever be number one in his life, with good reason.


Happy Valentine’s Day!!!

Image  —  Posted: February 5, 2014 in Lifestyle

The Nobel prizes

Posted: June 2, 2013 in History Now



By Aubrey Moeketsi


What is the Nobel Prize all about, who is legible to receive this sought after honor?

Well, in a nutshell, the Nobel Prizes is a set of annual international awards bestowed by the Scandinavian committees to outstanding individuals who perform great actions to serve the human race in fields of chemistry, medicine, literature, science, physics, as well as those who work for world peace and justice for all. It is a classy and very formal event held annually every October in Sweden, recipients don’t only get the award but they also get to receive a considerable amount of money(decided by the committee ).
The recipients are called Nobel laureates, and since its inception, a lot of great thinkers and luminaries have received this coveted honor, and of course our very own Bishop desmond Mpilo Tutu is one. He received his Nobel peace prize back in 16/ October/ 1984 / for his “role as a unifying leader-figure in the campaign to resolve the problem of apartheid in South Africa.”

Alright, allow me to digress a bit, for a minute forget about the Nobel Prizes/awards, forget about the classy event, forget about great thinkers & luminaries who deservedly received those honors. Let’s talk about the name behind this whole thing, the man himself, the originator, Alfred Nobel, who was he was, what he did, and his contributions to the world before he passed on.

Alfred Nobel basically is the man who changed “the killing game” on the war front. when it would take a couple 190-something’s machine guns and well positioned soldiers to kill a dozen enemy, Alfred invented the dynamite and the ballistite, which were precursors to quite a lot of military grade explosive devices. Growing up, alfred worked in his fathers factory, which was producing military equipment for war. Weapons produced by his father’s company were used in the Crimean war in 1860.

Although Nobel intended dynamite for constructive purposes such as blasting tunnels and bridge footings, he didn’t hold back when it came to perfecting weapons. Indeed, the closing decade of his life was devoted to advancing weapons technologies, including rockets, cannons and progressive powder (a slow-burning explosive).

The founding of the Nobel Prizes:

two things influenced the founding of the nobel foundation.

1) the death of his brother,and
2) the French news paper article.

After the death of his brother, Ludvig, in 1888, a French newspaper mistakenly thought it had been Alfred Nobel himself who died.  The newspaper published the obituary under the title: “The merchant of death is dead”, going on to state: “Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday.”

When Nobel read this, he began thinking of how to improve his public image after his death and decided on leaving his enormous fortune to fund a set of prizes named after himself.

Altimately, i’m not trying to throw stones at Alfred Nobel’s good legacy, nor am I trying to accentuate his bad legacy, i’m merely trying to show people that sometimes its very much important to know the history of anything before we can “sing up”

I just think that its kinda ironic that the awards are given in the name of a man who dedicated most of his life to developing and inventing deadly military( explosive) technology which will perpetually erode human life.

“Sometimes when the foundation is rotten, it kinda taints any good thing that may come therafter….”

Nobel died of a stroke on December 10, 1896, in San Remo, Italy. After taxes and bequests to individuals, Nobel left 31,225,000 Swedish kronor (equivalent to 250 million U.S. dollars in 2008) to fund the Nobel Prizes.

The Gay Bible

Posted: April 23, 2013 in Religion


By Aubrey Moeketsi

The nation of America never ceases to amaze me, it seems that whatever the American people want – they will get, and that by any means neccesary, from the natural resources belonging to other countries, to even the “divine”.

I find it interesting to note that America considores its self to be a christian nation, however if u would evaluate the american culture,you will discover that it is the most abhorrent and very destructive culture in all the world. I have noticed that in America the only thing wrong there is “terrorism and niggers or black people”, otherwise premarital Sex, Homosexuality, drugs, Feminism, Atheism, Communism and war are all celebrated there, from reality TV’s to Hollywood produced movies.

The Gay community of america have decided to publish their own Gay Bible, which will removes all références to being gay as sin. It was published last year at the end of November 2012. It is called the “Queen James” bible, because the authors believe that King James was a homosexual king who also slept with women. So in naming this version the Queen James Bible, instead of the King as we have it, the publishers assert that they are duly honoring the king.

Those releasing the book claim that the book prevents “homophobic culture” from being a distraction to those seeking to study the teachings of Jesus Christ. The publishers say that there was no mention of homosexuality in the bible until 1946 when the revised version was released to the public. They also claim that this version is often misinterpreted.

One change made to the bible is that of Leviticus 18:21-22  “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.”  Instead, it says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination.”  This argues that gay culture started as a pagan practice and is only banned when the acts are done in the name of paganism.

“King James’ many gay relationships were so well known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as ‘Queen James,’” the book says on its website. “It is in his great debt and honor that we name the Queen James Bible so.”

With this kind of bible produced in america, you can be sure that it will be a matter of time before it goes viral all over the world.

i have an appropriate solution to the gay community of America (and the world), instead of altering the infalliable word of God to suits your needs and to make u feel good about homosexuality (and in a process contravening the warning in REV 22:18-19 that “If any man shall add to or take away to the Word of God, God shall add unto him plagues that are written in the book”), instead of modifying the immutable Word of God, what you need to do is to refute and reject the authority of the bible in its entirety, because it is not only in Leviticus 18 that the act is strongly condamned, but also in the new testament (see Romans 1: 26-27 and 1peter 1: 25-27, so will you guys in the future modify those as well?), my advise is simple, reject God, and Jesus like the Atheist do, by doing so you won’t have to keep altering the bible to make you feel good. The bible is not the bill of rights which can be amended to suit people.

pastor Mandla Nxumalo

Posted: March 4, 2013 in Religion


“may his soul rest in peace”

By Aubrey Moeketsi

the death of pastor mandla mxumalo has came as a real shock to most of us who knew him, i once attended a crusade where he was preaching and i was inspired by both his level of success (business-wise) and how he disected the word of God that day….

what inspired me most is how he made it from a poor broke rural boy to a succesful business man…the manner in which he died really left me in total shock….

how can a man of God die like a common thieve?

All three of them (him and his two body guards) were attacked by angry workers who hacked them to death….
how can this be? he had two body guards that day…God was there too….who do we blame, how can humans do this? was he a fraud?was he a con-artist who preyed on vulnerable poor unemployed ppl?…was it a set up?…..*only God knows*

whatever the case, he inspired me

May his soul rest in peace!

Tonnex chooses a Gay life-style.

Posted: December 16, 2012 in Religion


By Aubrey Moeketsi


 One song that Tonex (Anthony Charles Williams II) is WELL-KNOWN for, which also helped catapult him into one of the most celebrated gospel singer in the gospel arena was the song “Lord make me over again”, which was well received in the Christian–world globally. Tonex was also known for his eccentric style and vertiginous high notes which helped made him one of the most acclaimed praise singers of the past decade and for a time successful.

He had a certain hip hop swagger and the status of a sex symbol. His live performances were very eccentric & left his fans gasping for more – but at the same time it also left some “orthodox” Christians wondering if he really were a Christian or just an entertainer. His live double CD “out the box” won him six trophies at the 2005 Stellar Awards, gospel’s most prestigious event in America.  Tonex (was) a multitalented artist who was also a pastor at the church founded by his late father (Dr. Anthony Williams)

In 2005 tonex divorced after 4 years of marriage to Yvette graham and In June 2010 the brand TONEX the Christian artist retired. Tonex was a welcome guest at all the biggest black churches in America and beyond, a regular presenter at the BET gospel shows, & a headliner at gospel festivals  UNTIL mid-September 2010 in which he came out publicly on  the television show known as Lexi and admitted that he was Gay and content with it.

This is what he had to say about his stand on the whole issue:

 “ I just want to put this disclaimer out there. Cause many times you hear peolple blame their sexual experiences or explorations on molestations or rape. And , I just wanna say that yes I was indeed molested,true. I was exposed to things that I obviouslyat that age you shoulndt be exposed one opens up a box of awarness.however, iam not blaming those situations on the choices I made later

 He went on to say suggest that “a homosexual relationship can be as godly (or ungodly) as a heterosexual one.

Since the show his relationship with the mainstream gospel industry was effectively over, Tonex went from being just another sinner to a heretic in the mainstream Christian world.

 In December 2011 he re-emerged as B-slade (one on the left on the picture) the gay artist.

 One cannot mention tonex story without comparing it to that of Donnie mcClurkin , Both tonex and Donnie mClurkin  came out publicly and openly acknowledge their desires. But the difference between them both is that one choses to leave the lifestyle and inspire others to come to God with their struggles and be made whole while the other (tonex/B-slade) choose to continue in the life style and is happy with it.

Its also very important to note that both tonex and Donnie Mc-Clurkin were sexually abused as kids, they were molested as teens as well and according to Donnie from then on the seed of pervetion was sown in their lives.

Altimately the purpose of this blog is not to use Donnie Mc-Clurkin as a barometer & platform to crucify Tonex. Both men have impacted the lives of christians not only in America but globally – even in the circular world. Both men are saved and will forever be as such because according to ROMANS 11 v 29 it says “ for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (KJV).

I personaly feel that it is not our duty as chrsitans to judge, crucify and persecute Tonex our brother. He is still gifted and anointed as before, it is our duty as christinas to LOVE, all of us are sinners in one way or the other.

Both Donnie and Tonex needs our fervent prayers, because one is right where the devil wanted him and the other is and will forever struggle and fight homosexuality because NOBODY CONDEMS HOMOSEXUALITY BUT GOD HIMSELF.