By Aubrey AJ Moeketsi

Although the Christian worldview recognizes the democratic construct of the modern world, we are not living under a democracy but a monarchy in the kingdom. The concept of kingship is very much important for us as Christians if we are to fully understand the kingdom we live under. The monarchy system emerged out of God into space and time, this is precisely why our God is not only known as a Father but King as well, in fact since both God and Jesus are one (source: John14 :10 ), they are therefore both are known as king ( singular not plural). At no point in the history of the Christian worldview was Jesus known as a president or prime-minister. No democratic processes where followed in crowning Jesus or God king.  God instituted the monarchy, although originally Israel was not supposed to be like all other nations around them, God was supposed to be their only king. The people looked around and demanded that Samuel ordain a king for them, this was also aggravated by the conduct of Samuel’s sons who walked not in their fathers ways. This grieved him but after consulting with God, he eventually he conceded and gave them the monarchy.

This article seeks to draw attention the importance of understanding the concept of kingdom, kingship, kingdom processes and protocols to power. we will look more into the subjection of elevation in the kingdom, we will examine the three (3) tables of elevation following the lives of three kings God raised at the dawn of the era kings in Israel. Enjoy!

Key Words: King, Presence, Table, preparation, elevation, Invitation

The Presence of a king

The first ever mention of the term kingdom is found in the book of beginnings, Genesis 10:10. The passage makes reference to the Babylonian system of rule which was built by a descendant of Cush, a black man named Nimrod. I find it intriguing that the concept of kingship was first grasped by people of color, amazing!

Nimrod is credited for building a colossal Babylonian empire and system of rule under one man; namely himself. Albeit diabolical in nature, the system of Babylon paved the way for the construction of global kingdoms and systems of rule. Forget the wickedness of Babylon, look at what the mind can create, his brilliant mind created a system that was eventually adopted even in Israel by God’s people. A lot came from Africa, by that particular subject deserves its own treatment, it will be dealt with in ‘later’.

Every kingdom has a central figure known as a king who rules over his domain (kingdom). Kings are ‘centers’ of power; meaning from the mouth of a king comes law. Whenever you conversate with a king; you are in fact speaking with a system that can alter or create decrees and laws. This fact alone makes the presence of a king significant. The presence of a king is qualitatively different from the presence of prime ministers and presidents, it is superior to that of his stewards his kingdom. Whenever you wish to see the king, you will first have to entertain the presence of his subjects. These will first determine if your matter is worthy to be brought before the king; why, because the kings’ time is valuable; again, Kings recognize kings; therefore you better not come into his presence with trivial stuff, lest you lose your head (Esther 4: 5).

Coming into the presence of a King

When accessing his presence, God demands that we be still before his throne and recognize that he is God whose portion is exaltation (source, Ps 45:10). He is called the king of Glory, strong and mighty in battle (Ps 24:8-10). Our God is not just a father and creator, but he is king as well, not only are we his children but we are also royal citizens in his kingdom, therefore, accessing his presence two things ought to be observed:

1)      Protocol is observed when entering the presence of a king,

2)      One comes by Invitation to appear before the king.

Observed protocol:

1kings 1:16 “Bathsheba bowed down, prostrating herself before the king (David)..”

One has to be able to distinguish between David the man (husband) and David the king, God’s anointed. We read in the book of 2Sam : that God takes it personally when we disrespect his anointed king irrespective of our personal relationship with the king. In the monarchy, it really doesn’t matter if one is a wife to the king or a son, or even a prophet or friend of the king. Whenever one gets into the presence of a king, one has to observe protocol before him, this means bowing down, and falling prostrate before him paying homage to the anointed king.

As Christians we need to be able to distinguish between Jesus our Savior and friend (John 15:14) with Jesus the soon coming king (Rev 19:16). We don’t just come into his presence like spoiled brats always crying for candy, but at all times we need to be cognizant of the fact that albeit our friends and savior, Jesus is in fact out king and our Lord, as such, he deserves the honor and respect due to the king. Therefore, the next time when you enter his presence, hail him king, sing his praises, fall prostrate before him, elevate your father the king. The next time when you come before him, observe protocol, he is as a savior and a father who is also your king, therefore crown and recognize him as king. When you come before him, be still and know that he is a system of power and glory, he is law and he commands order in the universe. See him and honor him as king!

Come by invitation:

Esther 4:11 “whoever shall come unto the King, who is not called, there is a law of his to put him to death….”

You don’t rock up into the presence of a king uninvited. That’s a serious offence in any nation or kingdom. In fact, that’s called a bridge of security and there are some serious consequences for perpetrators. One is invited to appear before the king, you don’t just slide in. In the days of Esther, you would get killed if you did that, no one was spared, not even Esther the queen herself. Whenever one is invited to appear before the king, one is in fact invited to conversate with the power.  Conversations in the presence of a king are of higher

level for they have a propensity to impact and affect the entire nation.

Now let me ask you a question;

If you were to be invited to appear before the king or the president of South Africa or the premier of your province, what will you say when you get into the presence of power?

If God were to overnight raise you up into a national portfolio that demands that you entertain kings and presidents on behalf of the people, what will you say to kings and custodians of power?

Do you have anything of significance to say to the king?

Do you understand the nature of issues kings entertain?

If you cannot answer these simple questions, then just know that you are not yet ready for God to use you on a national level; osharp mo oleng teng, chill !!!!!

The Tables of elevation

In his book, Psalm 23:5, David speaks of a table which the Lord prepares in his honor. The word table in this context has the connotation of honoreasebanquetingcelebration, and elevation. It’s a table like no other; it’s a table in high places, its spread out, guests are invited to join in-in your celebration and honor. It’s not just a table, it’s called a table of honor and God is the one who prepares it.

Let me give you the three tables of elevation in scripture to give proper context in term of how God actually elevates royal subject in his kingdom.

We have;

1)      The table of Saul

2)      The table of David

3)      The table of Solomon

1)  The table of Saul

There’s a prevailing myth in Christian circles that Saul was not God’s choice, that he was the people’s choice. That narrative isn’t exactly correct. You see, the people demanded a king and it was God who did the choosing, not the people. There was no convening of elders to decide on the next king, God alone did the choosing. In 1Sam9:15, God tells Samuel in his ear that he has to anoint a man as king, in fact the scripture reads; I will send you a man and you shall anoint him captain over my people (1Sam9:15). That word captain is Hebrew has the connotation of chief, commander and ruler, therefore king, hence Saul was known as king.

When Saul’s father lost his donkeys, God found his king.

I want you to concentrate on Saul’s beginning, not his end. If you do, I wish to show you a very important principle relating to how God elevates people. Saul came from a well-off family, his father owned, amongst other things domesticated donkeys.  When push came to shave, God moved donkeys out of order and they got lost. See, God was fishing for a king, so he caused the donkeys to lost direction. He wanted Saul away from his father’s house for a minute, so he moved the donkeys so as to grab Saul’s attention; ultimately, When Saul’s father lost his donkeys, God found his king. See, God will use anything to get what he wants; it can be a jawbone of a dead donkey, or a herd of alive and lost donkeys to find his king. From a vacuous space in Genesis 1:2, God created the entire globe, from 5(five) loafs and two fish, he fed thousands. He is God, therefore able. A herd of lost donkeys ushered in a new era in Israel, the dawn of a new system of kingship with Saul being the new first ever king of Israel. this was the elevation and table of Saul.

The table of Saul was prepared by none other than God and his prophet Samuel. If you read further down in 1sam9:17-22, you will discover that Saul, albeit from a rich family, his clan was the smallest in Israel. In the old era, numbers meant power, so his clan did not possess numerical power; this meant that even if all twelve tribes were to vote for a king, his clan would lose out, but God……!!!!

There’s a banquet in your honor ….

There was a banquet prepared in the honor of an unknown man (1Sam9:12). This is precisely how God works; he loves surprises. The people were invited to celebrate a man they did not know, nobody knew in whose honor was the banquets called, not even the prophet himself at least until Saul came into his presence in 1sam9:17. On the day the donkeys got lost, there was a conversation in the 3rd dimension between God and his council, and Saul’s name came up. When God told Samuel to host a celebration; there was no word on who is honored until God revealed the man first to Samuel and later to the guest at the table of honor. Saul did not know that on the day he was chasing lost donkeys that he was running into his destiny. God will prepare a banquet and invite everybody, and they won’t eat until YOU arrive, that’s elevation….

What will you say if I told you that God is busy preparing a banquet in your honor…?

Are you ready to take a detour….?

2)    The table of David

It was David who popularized the concept of the table of elevation, it was him who wrote, thou prepares a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: David is that shepherd boy whom God employed to reign over his people after Saul messed up. God gave David a very powerful name throughout the ages to this very day. Perhaps what catapulted him into a position of significance was his encounter with the colossal philistine, this became one of the greatest battles ever told and it even caught the attention of the secular world.  It became proverbial and gave ‘voice’ and courage to ‘little men’ who encountered bigger challenges in life. I’m not going to dwell more on David’s table of elevation simply because David is that biblical character whose story is well known. I just have few remarks and few points to extrapolate from his account.

He was not invited to his elevation party

You just have to appreciate the irony of this whole scenario. There is a gathering to anoint and honor Israel’s next king, but the one who is the next king did not get the invitation to his own ‘party’. Nobody thought a little teenage boy could interest God enough to make him king, The command was Jesse, get all your sons for the meeting; and Jesse brought only those he deemed fit for kingship. He got only seven of his sons and neglected last born. It’s amazing because usually the last born is the one who is loved above all, but it would seem like with David that wasn’t the case. David’s own father never thought that his boy could be king hence he was not invited in the first place. When all other sons were in front of God ‘well dressed’, and smelling of expensive colognes waiting to receive the oil for kingship, God was waiting for David who was out in the field smelling like sheep to be called in. When the oil couldn’t flow on any of his brothers, David had to be called in for “they will not sit down till he comes “(1Sam 16:11). See, when God is getting ready to honor you, he will invite all those prognosticators who never thought you will amount to anything, he will wait for the right moment, and at the right time, he will prepare a table before you in the presence of all your enemies. So, the next time when they choose not to recognize what’s on you, don’t be bothered, just keep position, for in due season, they will know that you are God’s choice.

He was anointed and hidden

There are two important things to note about David’s anointing; Number one – when David was anointed king, Israel already had a king on the throne. This means that a shift was not immediate, it was a process. God gave David kingship while he was a little teenage boy who knew no other life than being a shepherd boy, the next step was to process him, hence his elevation to the throne it was not immediate.

Number two – nobody knew that David was anointed as the next king, except Prophet Samuel and members of his family. David’s family had to keep this a secret if they valued their lives. This implies that after God anointed David, he had to hide him. Meaning, for 30 years David walked around the streets of Jerusalem as king who was not yet recognized as such, people saw a little shepherd boy but God was busy processing his next king.

The principle here is this; God can anoint you and hide you from the masses. People could still see a shepherd boy not knowing that your destiny is bigger than the sheep you looking after. It’s not about the people’s perspective, but God’s view.

3)    The table of Solomon

Speaking of his successor, God tells David his servant that after him will arise one of his sons who will ascend the throne, and he will be the one to build God a house, this was after David volunteered to build God a house.  What’s interesting about this conversation between God and David was that, if you juxtapose both 2 Sam 7:12 with 1kings 1; you will realize that no name was mentioned as to who this son was. God never gave the name of David’s successor, he just mention gender, “one of your sons”(2 Sam 7:12). This becomes important because David had a number of sons to his name, he did not have only one son, he had concubines who gave him both sons and daughters. This issue of succession became a serious issue of contention amongst David’s sons as because each son thought to himself that perhaps God spoke of him t

o David his father, this is primarily the reason why both Absalom and Adonijah rose up and wanted to usurp the throne from David their father.

Adonijah steals the table

The first mistake that Adonijah did was to exalt himself before time, its recorded in scripture that when David was old and well stricken in years, that Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying “I will be king”(Source:1kings 1:5). He apparently wasn’t familiar with a passage that said exalt not thyself, lest you be abased (source:1Peter 5:6). The second mistake that he did was that he prepared his own table of elevation. David lets us know that its God who prepares the table, not us. After he declared himself king, it’s recorded that he prepared chariots and horsemen and fifty men to run before him (1kings1:5). See, nobody knows how to elevate and debase men like God. If we allow him to prepare our moments of elevation, he will do it with excellence and precision. In Israel, no one volunteers to be king, you had to be prepared for kingship. Before God can elevate he prepares first. That’s why David was anointed and hidden, because God had to process him first before he can ascend the throne. The third and last mistake he did was that he never invited the rightful heir to the throne, the next king Solomon (1kings 1:10), he therefore stole the throne from Solomon.

Be careful what you reject

While Adonijah thought to himself that the throne belonged to him, God was busy processing Solomon in silence. It was like a game of chess when God was being secretive about his next move.  I find it intriguing that in all this, Solomon never at any time tried to speak out and fight for his himself. He was quiet and never said a word until God moved on his behalf. The only time we hear Solomon speak was when he was firmly established as king over all Israel (1kings1:52) and this was when he was addressing Adonijah who was begging for his own life from the one he rejected in the first place. There’s so much to excavate from all this, but perhaps what’s most important is that:

–          Let God Prepare your table of elevation, don’t do it yourself

–          Let them reject you, as long as God is not the one who rejects you its fine, eventually they will know that you were God’s choice all along.

–          Be like Solomon, don’t speak until you are firmly established by God,

–          Be like David, even when you have God’s oil over your life, be ready to be hidden

–          Be like Saul, be ready to lose the donkeys, they are not the issue, you are………”



Motto“I’m a Christian first before I’m Academic”


“And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God….” (Acts 16:14)


By Aubrey AJ Moeketsi
Known for her strong work ethic, a city girl from Thyatira, daughter of the most high, a worshiper of the Living God of Israel. A wife, a business woman, an intercessor, a kingdom underwriter. Her name is Lydia; the color purple is often used synonymously with her – for it was the very fabric that set her on a course to success, it turned her into a sharp business woman of note. Lydia is one of the New Testament’s strong women used by the Lord to underwrite the work of the kingdom of God. She used her resources to cater for God’s eminent Apostle in the book of Acts 7:8.
Lydia was not known for the prophetic like Deborah, neither was she known for her beauty like Queen Esther. Lydia was known for her strong business acumen, a Christian woman prospering in business. This was the legacy of Lydia; a perfect balance between God, Business and family!
In this Blog we will look extensively into the life of one of the significant biblical characters named Lydia, we will find out who exactly was Lydia, where she came from and most importantly, what sets her apart from the rest of her female counterparts in bible.

She stayed in Phillipe

Philippi was a roman colony, meaning it was a “miniature” of Rome. If Rome was a great empire in the world at that time, then Philippi had to be a replica of Rome the mother city. In the ancient world, colonies had to be replicas of empires that colonized them, hence the name colonies. Philippi was the capital of the province of Macedonia, it was not just a capital but a leading city in the district of Macedonia (Source; Acts 16:12). This means that there were many cities in Macedonia, but Philippi in Macedonia was an affluent & a leading city. It was a city near the Sea, a very beautiful geographical location in Macedonia. What I find intriguing is the fact that Lydia, a woman of God lived this particular city. She resided in an affluent part of Macedonia, a great city. She was apparently a person of considerable wealth for she could afford to stay in such an affluent & leading city. Lydia was therefore a city girl. The fact that Philippi was an affluent city; this tells you about the socio-economic status of people who stayed there. This means that people who dwelled in this particular city where well-off individuals; People who can afford stay in cities, but affluent people stay in leading & affluent cities, Lydia stayed in an affluent City.
Here‟s another interesting fact about God our father; God called a city girl into ministry; God looked over into an affluent suburb and found himself a woman in the city, he called her and used her to advanced his kingdom. God did not ask Lydia to forsake her wealth and follow Paul, but He used her, wealthy as she was. That‟s God!

She was a business woman

The City Lydia stayed in was famous for the color purple; among the ruins of the city, inscriptions have been found relating to the guild of dyers in that city in ancient times. This city was known for its appreciation of the color purple. People who stayed in Philippi cherished fabric dyed in purple color. The number one product that affluent people in Philippi consumed at that time was textiles made in purple. Lydia happened to the seller of the color purple in the city (Acts 16:14). She was in the business of manufacturing and selling cloths dyed in purple color.

There are so many revelations in this passage;

Number one;

Lydia was not only a city dweller, but she knew the need of the city, affluent people have a strong taste for luxury, the color purple was in high demand in the city at that time. Lydia knew her client-base so well for she stayed in the same city, this meant that she was well positioned to meet the needs of the city.

“God will position you in the right place, at the right time, all you need to do is to be aware of your surroundings, know your city, and understand your location. This also relates to one’s chosen field of study, do you know why you’re in the field you are in today“?
Number two;

She provided the much needed product. They needed a product and she manufactured it and sold it to them. Rich people don‟t always ask for a price, they ask for quality and class, Lydia sold both. The color purple is a representation of luxury, Lydia sold luxury. The industry Lydia operated in was the industry of luxury, boutiques. Can you imagine a woman of God in such an industry; I can, I know her name; it‟s Lydia.
“When God places you in a particular field of study, or in a specific geographical location, you owe it to yourself to find out why God moved you into that specific geography…there’s always a divine reason why, find that out!

The Color purple

The color purple also stands for royalty; it‟s the color of kings, the rich and the affluent. It‟s a representation of luxury. You don‟t sell luxury to peasants. Village dwellers don‟t have time to invest their hard earned money in luxury. Its kings who will appreciate your product, it‟s normally the rich and the affluent who will appreciate what you carry. God will place you in an environment where your clients will be able to locate you. Lydia was well positioned! “Lydia, kings are waiting for your product; Arise Lydia and God will shine on you. Open that business, start that NGO in Jesus’ Name!”
Lydia was known as a kingdom underwriter
When Paul moved into the city of Philippi, God touched a well-resourced woman to cater for the needs of his servant. God used a Christian-business woman to attend to the needs of kingdom workers. God found Lydia and opened her heart and she became Paul‟s greatest help until he left the city. At this time the person who was well positioned to can assist in advancing the kingdom‟s ideology was Lydia. When Paul the servant of the Lord came into the city, he found Lydia worshiping in church with a group of women; Lydia kept a company of women who sought the Lord. I call them “a company of Lydia”, these where city women who devoted much of their time in prayer (source; Acts 16:13).
“You think that God cannot raise an army of well-resourced business women who also pray, well think again..”

One of the key purposes why God prospers his children materially is primarily because God wants us to be well positioned financially in order to underwrite his kingdom. Every kingdom has underwriters. A kingdom is an ideology, and every ideology needs supporters and underwriters. It would seem like every other kingdom in the world has underwriters but ours.. But we thank God for raising woman such as Lydia! The whole purpose why Lydia appeared in the picture was to help underwrite the work of the kingdom. That was her purpose in the kingdom. She was not called as a prophet like Deborah nor was she called to function as Queen like Esther; she was called as a kingdom underwriter. God called a business woman!

Characteristic of Lydia:

Beyond her money, fame and wealth, Lydia was known as a church girl. This is a girl that met regularly with a group of women at the city gate to pray, (Source; Acts 16:13). Lydia stayed in Europe, according to many theologians; she was one of the first people to embrace Christianity in Europe through Apostle Paul.

Who was Lydia?

– She was first and foremost a worshiper of the Lord (Acts 16:14)

– She was business woman

– an employer (Acts 16:14)

– She was a woman of class

– she sold class, the color purple.

– She was a city girl

– stayed in an affluent and leading city

– She was an affluent woman used by God

It‟s important to note that before Lydia was a business woman, she was a lover of the Lord, a worshiper before she was a business woman. I mean Paul found Lydia in church; they met in a place of worship. Lydia was a worshiper of God – she pursued God. How good and pleasant it is to know that one can be a successful business person who also “majors” in prayer and worship. It‟s a myth that we cannot achieve a balance between the two. We learn this from the life of Lydia that it‟s possible. All we need is grace to handle both. God used Lydia to demonstrate to us that it‟s possible to achieve a perfect balance between Ministry, Business and Family. The character of Lydia is very much important for the New Testament Church because it‟s through her life that we learn the importance of balancing spirituality and life. This is imperative because a lot of Christian families fail to strike a balance between these three fundamental principles and this has unfortunately led to untold harm done to the Family and ministry.
She was a worshiper before she was a business woman
This is the legacy of Lydia; “capacity to use ones fortune to underwrite the Kingdom of God, and to possess sufficient grace to handle the Family, Business and Ministry, its possible….”

No Partiality with God

I love the fact that Lydia was a woman and that she was wealthy too. It will seem like God was using Lydia to break the traditional stereotype that God cannot use wealthy individuals to advance his kingdom. Indeed there is no partiality with God; He is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34); the same God who prospered and favored males, is the same God who „ill rise up and prosper a female in the same manner. Lydia was a woman who was graced to operate in financial favor.

These are excerpts from my up-coming book titled; “Kingdom Underwriters”.


By Aubrey Moeketsi


Premise One – “God Doesn’t Exist….”

If God does not exist, then everything is permitted & permissible. This whole idea of [1]objective morality is therefore totally nonsensical, let objective morality be eradicated and replaced with subjective morality. If God doesn’t exit, it therefore behooves us the people to come up with the definition of what it really means to be good or evil, right or wrong. Meaning if there is no God to give divine orders, then there is no real objective standard measure of morality, all we’re left with is moral [2]relativism, and we the people automatically become self-referencing points for what is right and what is wrong.  Moral relativism is by definition ‘self-government’, this means that in the absence of God, Right and wrong remains in the eyes of the beholder. Relativism holds that’s there is no life after death, that Death and life are nothing but natural life processes, therefore we shouldn’t be spooked by ‘silly’ Christians who claim that there is judgment after this life. All that matters is here and now. The main thrust of this premise is that there can never be Objective morality simply because if the God- equation is done away with, there remains no standard measure for morality. we do not have such thing as called right or wrong, all we have is relativism, or simply put, morality from within or morals according to ‘me’ and not from a religious book. I decide what is right and acceptable.

Premise Two“Science is The Ultimate Truth”

In the absence of a creator – the natural question that’s follows becomes the inquiry about the beginner; who or what gave us the beginning; if it’s not the Judeo-Christian God then who or what did. What do we substitute the hypotheses of God with, in the place of God, who do we crown and credit for this magnificent and brilliant work of creation.

Well, if you ask the scientific community, the answer is simple and there’s no ambiguity about it; science did. Science, and not God, gave us both the universe and subsequent human species that emerged thereafter. The main thrust of the scientific position is that what we call God is actually a process they affectionately refer to as the “beautiful cosmic accident” that brought about the creation of the entire globe. This is then followed by the hypothesis that human beings came by means of a [3]Darwinian process called Evolution. Simply put, it was a series of metamorphic change and alteration from one state of being to the next; popular case study being a move from a chimpanzee to the current state of human beings. If science is right, or perhaps more specifically, if Darwinian scientism is correct, then God is not the originator of the world as was supposed; the silly Christian claim that God created the universe has no basis in science (Darwinian science to be specific). We are here by means of a purely unplanned, and uncaused Cambrian explosion called the “Big Bang” theory. If all this is correct then we need to consider the inevitable conclusion that follows…….”

The Conclusion That Follows 

“Everything is Permitted…”

I believe it was [4]Ivan Karamazov who once exclaimed that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted and permissible. The conclusion that follows therefore is that since we live in a circular world devoid of God, Why should people pursue morality? Why should I not steal, I mean all I have to do is to make sure that I do not get caught; why refrain from adultery or fornication? Why deprive yourself of the pleasures of the flesh? We are highly evolved animals after all, right? Why not immense ourselves in carnal pleasures? What’s wrong with doing that?

If scientific theories are correct, then religious beliefs must be false. If this is the case, it follows therefore that there is no ultimate meaning to life, after all, we came by a purely unplanned cosmic accident called the ‘Big Bang’, There is no all loving, all knowing, all powerful and highly intelligent being who created us in his own image. In the philosophy of science, inferences of God or gods are all relegated into folklore, all these become mere legends. Within the confines of this understanding life loses significance and intrinsic value; we human beings are nothing but highly evolved animals. Our nature and attitude rapidly takes on the animalistic disposition, we are driven by our natural self-instincts and desires, nothing or no one has the moral authority to stop us from exploring our animalistic nature, there is no God after all…right?

In the absence of God or religion, there is really no rational need to be good because both Good and evil are merely relative. Traditionally, the baseline for ethics and morality has always been God, so since science has supposedly overthrown God, there remains therefore no rational basis for good moral behavior. In a circular materialistic world, a world where God doesn’t exist, one cannot make a moral judgment or demand others to be good as there is really not pressing reason why people should be good. If there is no God, then moral endeavors are all in vain as because there is no God to reward good behavior after this life, Therefore:

  • Let a man marry his own dog – who is to say that this is wrong?
  • Let the state force churches to officiate marriage between Tom and Tommy, I mean how dare they refuse to celebrate ‘love’ between two consenting hairy adult-men who ‘love’ each other?
  • Let a man marry his own mother, if its consensual is ohk, right?
  • Let weak nations be exterminated without mercy – why should we be good to them, after all there is no rational reason for good behavior?
  • While at it, why not assume superiority over weak races? Why not decimate the feeble nations and take their land and resources? Why hold back from annihilating them seeing that they cannot fight back and that there is no God to judge you after this life.
  • Why not legalize [5]Eugenics across the globe, get rid of the weak medically and leave only the strong and healthy. This will perhaps lead to the utopian world as was supposed by Adolf Hitler who by the way never believed in God, who only believed in the superiority the German race as the chosen and pure race.

And finally, let’s Break all moral compasses available, lets reject all religious inferences of righteous living, why be righteous? For who? For what? Why not be riotous instead of righteous, what’s wrong with that, if it’s wrong who has the moral authority to make that kind of judgment seeing that science got rid of God?


My closing remarks:

 I just have one question though; can we really say as society that we can live with this kind of ideology? Can we really say that removing God from all social institutions will lead to a utopian and ideal society where people are free and thriving? Is moral relativism as espoused by the circular western world ideal for Africa and generally for the rest of the world, will this kind of philosophy sustain and preserve the sacredness of human life 50 to 100 years from now?

[1] Objective morality, divine rule or law as dictated by God versus Subjective morality, personal, not binding,

[2] Moral relativism – also known as subjective morality, is morality as determined by self.

[3] Charles Darwin(1809–1882)the theory of evolution

[4] Ivan Karamazov The Russian Messenger from January 1879 to November 1880

[5] Eugenics – medical extermination of the weak and feeble


Posted: April 19, 2017 in Uncategorized

His pain cannot be understood by many…

They look but do not see…they cannot see the hurting, alone, potent, capable and highly gifted man who possess the great gifts of God in him……

They cannot know his pain for they are not exposed to it, neither do they understand it…

He is alone in a crowd….

They look at him, thinking that they know his untold suffering and pain…

They think he is fine, but he is not…..his struggles are beyond his capacity to can handle…

He screams, but nobody hears…

….will he ever overcome……..will he ever win the battle……

The Lord Knows……


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!