₦airaland Forum

Sometimes in January of 2014, the Federal Government of Nigeria under the leadership of the then president Dr Ebele Goodluck Jonathan signed the Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill 2013 into law. The president went ahead to give assent to the Act that made that bill into law despite protests from some western powers. For those who may not understand, the signing of that bill into law meant homosexuals in Nigeria will from hence risk a 14-year jail term if they do not retrace their steps and renounce their sexual orientation or if they engage in Same-Sex Marriage or relationships. The bill also prescribed that any person who operates or participates in the activities of any gay club, societies and or organizations whether directly or indirectly will earn for himself or herself a 10-year imprisonment. Those who administer, witness, abet or aid the solemnization of a Same-Sex Marriage are also going to bag a 10-year jail term and so on. Well, this is what I believe in summary, the bill is all about.

A lot of ink has been spilt on paper regarding the question of homosexuality- its definition, why it should be or should not be prohibited, what the Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgender (LGBT) community represents, about discrimination against and oppression of those who are homosexually inclined and so on. For this reason, I will not dwell on the subject matter of what homosexuality is in this article. However, I am going to look at this question from an entirely different perspective, which is, what Jesus’ stance on the matter may be! How would Jesus Christ have reacted if he was here today and the subject is broached?

First, as a writer who has written countless articles about the oppressed minorities in so many media, as one who believe the LGBT community is in the minority in this country, I believe it is my right to voice my opinion on this matter just as I believe that everybody has a right to make their opinion on the subject known. I am also certain that, just like me, most of the people who have spoken or written about this topic, whether for or against, are moved by some genuine concern. However, let me make it clear here that homosexuality is just a type of the over 20 sexual orientations that people exhibit around the world today. As a matter of fact, in my own opinion, compared to other types of sexual orientations, homosexuality is even a mild sexual orientation that should not have generated the sort of argument it generated when the issue came up. I recently read somewhere that the former president said the issue should or will be re-visited. How far that is true, I am not sure. What this government intends to do about it, I am not also sure. But what I am sure of is that there was no need for the buzz about the matter to the extent that it warranted the Senate to abandon other pressing matters of national relevance and then begin to spend precious time in passing a bill that even that president needed to assent to. If we are this repulsed by homosexuality, how about pedophilia which is a sexual orientation where an adult engages in sex with a child- and this is still currently going on in some quarters in Nigeria today as we speak- or necrophilia which is sex with the dead? How about fetishism which is sex with non-living object belonging to someone one admires or coprophilia which is a sexual orientation where one engages in sex with the faeces of someone that that person admires yet cannot approach, or Urophilia and Bestiality which is sex with the urine of a person one has a crush for and sex with an animal respectively. Or are we in denial that there are no Nigerians who engages in these sort of sexual activities? If we call for the heads of homosexuals because they engage in consensual sex with each other, what are we going to do to or about those having sex with the dead bodies?

At this point, I think it is best I make some clarifications before I proceeded with my write-up. I am not a homosexual neither did I choose to write this article for anyone or group of people. I decided to write this article because of the clear conviction that I have which is, we do not as a people need such a bill that will prohibit law abiding citizens of this country from loving who they choose to love. That said, the reaction of Nigerians that greeted that president’s assent to the bill mirrors the non-acceptance of homosexuality and the mind-set of majority of Nigerians on this issue, and this to me, is sad. Debates on this subject matter have been on for a while and I believe if a referendum were to be organized in Nigeria today, homosexuals will find as they may already know, that they are in the minority in this country. But this should not be a reason or licence to call for their heads or victimise them. I also read recently that the western world strongly advised African nations to make laws that will protect homosexuals, in as much as I support this advice, I believe the western world should recognize that majority of Nigerians find homosexuality offensive and would rather not talk about it (even though the practice is clearly on the rise here) and therefore should not in the future bully us into a position that may create certain difficulties for us. At least the west of all should know that in a democracy, the minority will have their say while the majority will have their way and as such should not try to force the hand of the Nigerian government on this matter by way of threats. Even though the majority have already had their way on this matter, personally I still hold the view that whatever any two consenting adults do with their genitals behind closed doors and in the privacy of their rooms shouldn’t be anyone’s business let alone that of the government. Therefore, the majority should allow the minority have their own say too. If two adults decides to take their love for each other further by deciding to solemnize it in marriage, I think they should be allowed to so do and I do not see how that will change anything? How does that affect the price of garri in the market especially if these adults discharge their duties to society with utmost responsibility and patriotism? Why should any government imprison anyone because of who he chooses to love or want to spend the rest of his or her life with? Isn’t this tantamount to sending a child to jail because he or she is a Leftist? It is my believe that in this life, just as we have the hunger for food and thirst for water so also we possess the urge for sex. Now, if Mr A decides to satisfy his thirst for water with a soft drink and Mr B decides he will satisfy his with a glass of water, what or who gives Mr B the right to condemn Mr A for his choice of what he chooses to use in the satisfaction of his thirst? The same thing applies to sex in my thinking. I believe no one, not even the State should have the right to dictate which sexual orientation is right or wrong- after all some people are already pushing the argument that even the State has not right to execute anyone even criminals in their advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty. What I think is that the State should make laws that protect citizen who feel repulsed by the act- like making laws that prevents homosexuals from displaying affection in public places. This is my take on the matter. Now let me explain why I hold this view.

In cultures influenced by the Abrahamic religions like our own, the law and religion established homosexuality as a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature. Still, history is full of great men who have influenced civilization from Alexander the Great to Socrates, from Lord Byron to Edward II, Hadrian and so on who have had terms such as homosexual or bisexual applied to them. This looks to me like a classic example of society lying to itself. Some people have even claimed strong evidences exist today to support the fact that homosexual behaviour has its roots in the human genes. Even though that is not the crux of this article, I have some reasons to want to entertain such thinking. If not, why would someone risk everything to be with ‘someone that he or she loves’ if this behaviour is just something learned and can actually be unlearned? And for those who argue that homosexuality is strange to African culture, there are reasons to believe that, the first record of a possible homosexual couple in history occurred in Africa. In a phenomenon commonly regarded as Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, it was discovered that an ancient Egyptian male couple who lived around 2400 BCE, clearly displayed homosexual behaviour. The pair was portrayed in a nose-kissing position, the most intimate pose in Egyptian art, surrounded by what appeared to be their heirs. Anthropologists Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe reported that women in Lesotho engaged in socially sanctioned "long term, erotic relationships" called motsoalle. E. E Evans-Pritchard also recorded that male Azande Warriors in the northern Congo routinely took on young male lovers between the ages of twelve and twenty, who helped with household tasks and participated in intercrural sex with their older husbands. All over Africa, there are countless homosexual sex rituals and so on. The list is inexhaustible and as such I will not dwell on all that. My focus in this article is religion! Christianity! The Holy Bible! Although mainstream religion and religious men tends to hold a negative view of homosexuality, which is expected by the way, my focus in this article will be, what was Jesus’ view on the subject matter while he was on earth and what would have been his view on the matter today? This is because majority of Nigerians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. And I am sure only a few people know that the gospels actually portray Jesus as an eccentric. He didn’t turn prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, men and women that were considered dredge of society away nor did he condemn them. As a matter of fact, he even dined with them. So, did he condemn homosexuals? Now, let me try to gauge Jesus’s viewpoint on the matter with a few passages of the Bible.

From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. This story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so. He believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be remotely healed back in the house. Marvelling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed. Now, like most stories in the gospels, this is not just another miracle story. This is a unique story that deserves careful examination for a good number of reasons. In the original language, the Greek word used in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is ‘pais’. In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could also mean a particular type of servant for example one who was “his master’s male lover.” Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers. To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover may seem repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms. In ancient times, commercial transactions were the predominant means of forming relationships. We can still witness such practice in some nations and even in northern Nigeria today. Under the law then, the wife was viewed as the property of the husband, with a status just a little above that of slave. In fact, in Jesus’ day, a boy or girl was considered of marriageable age upon reaching his or her early teens. It was not uncommon for boys and girls to marry at age 14 or 15. Nor was it uncommon for an older man to marry a young girl. Fortunately civilization has advanced, but these were the norms in the culture of Jesus’ day. In that culture, if you were a homosexual man who wanted a male “spouse,” you can simply achieve this, like your heterosexual counterparts, through a commercial transaction which is to purchase someone to serve that purpose. A servant purchased to serve this purpose was often called a pais or a ‘body slave’, the word ‘boy’ in English offers a rough comparison. Like pais, the word boy can be used to refer to a male child. But in the slave south in the nineteenth century in the United States of America, boy was also often used to refer to male slaves. The term boy –as may also apply to the word girl- can also be used as a term of endearment. For example, Kolajo’s father often refers to his mother as “his girl.” He doesn’t mean that she is a child, but rather that she is his “special one.” The term boy can be used in the same way, as in “my boy” or “my beau.” In ancient Greek, pais had a similar range of meanings. Thus, when this term was used, the listener had to consider the context of the statement to determine which meaning was intended. Some modern Christians may be tempted to simply declare by fiat that the Gospels could not possibly have used the term pais in the sense of male lover, end of discussion. But that would be yielding to prejudice. We must let the Holy Bible the word of God speak for itself, even if it leads us to an uncomfortable destination or conclusion. Is it possible the pais referred to in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 was the Roman centurion’s male lover? Let’s look at the biblical evidence.

The Bible provides three key pieces of textual and circumstantial evidence. First, in the Luke passage, several additional Greek words are used to describe the one who is sick. Luke says this pais was the centurion’s ‘entimos doulos’. The word doulos is a generic term for slave, and was never used in ancient Greek to describe a son or boy. Thus, Luke’s account rule out the possibility the sick person was the centurion’s son; his use of doulos makes clear this was a slave. However, Luke also takes care to indicate this was no ordinary slave. The word entimos means “honoured.” This was an “honoured slave” (entimos doulos) who was his master’s pais. Taken together, the three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick person was either the centurion’s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable option — he was his master’s male lover.
A second piece of evidence is found in verse 9 of Matthew’s account. In the course of expressing his faith in Jesus’ power to heal by simply speaking, the centurion says, “When I tell my slave to do something, he does it.” By extension, the centurion concludes that Jesus is also able to issue a remote verbal command that must be carried out. When speaking here of his slaves, the centurion uses the word doulos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais. In other words, when he is quoted in Matthew, the centurion uses pais only when referring to the sick person. He uses a different word, doulos, when speaking of his other slaves, as if to draw a distinction. (In Luke, it is others, not the centurion, who call the sick one an entimos doulos.) Again, the clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing — a slave who was the master’s male lover.

The third piece of evidence is circumstantial. In the Gospels, we have many examples of people seeking healing for themselves or for family members. But this story is the only example of someone seeking healing for a slave. The actions described are made even more remarkable by the fact that this was a proud Roman centurion (the conqueror/oppressor) who was humbling himself and pleading with a Jewish rabbi (the conquered/oppressed) to heal his slave. The extraordinary lengths to which this man went to seek healing for his slave is much more understandable, from a psychological perspective, if the slave was his beloved companion. Thus, all the textual and circumstantial evidence in the Gospels points in one direction. For objective observers, the conclusion is inescapable: In this story Jesus healed a man’s male lover. When understood this way, the story takes on a whole new dimension.

To be continued.....

A visit to the New Kuchingwuoro IDP camp in Abuja, FCT.....

https://mobile.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10209907737238564&id=1487997700&ref=bookmarks

'….LET US MAKE MAN.....'

Why do we need regular exercise, rigorous physical activities and or some form of hard labour as it were, to keep fit? Why is a sedentary life style dangerous especially by medical standards? For example, a man who spends all of his time in his air-conditioned office sitting in front of a computer with his bloated belly day in day out and munching away at junk food, will certainly not be as healthy and fit as compared to a labourer whose job is to load concrete into troughs all day and whose major meals consists of simple fruits and vegetables (because he cannot afford daily meals at Mr Biggs). Why is this so? Why is workouts, physical exercise or an exertion of the human body so important? Is there some disquieting hint about the true nature of the human body and why man was made in the fact that the body needs regular physical activities to function properly? Or like some have argued, was man made simply because of work? Was man created to till the ground? To put the question in a different form, who is man? Why is man? Where is man?

Throughout the entire world, almost every generation known to history, from the most intelligent professors in the finest laboratories in the most developed countries, to the most uninformed rural dwellers of the most underdeveloped countries of the world, have asked the question of why man was made with varying degree of sophistication. Yet over the years, many people have claimed that the answer to this question seem to have eluded man or that answers can only be found in some religious book or religion. Put this same question to the philosopher, spiritualist, religious man or scientist or even an atheist and you will get different answers. I do not pretend to have the answer myself. However, what I seek to achieve with this write-up is to simply offer an alternative opinion why I think man was made, looking at the subject from a very different and an unusual perspective.

A visit to a gym and a construction site recently, and a critical observation of a fitness expert and a common labourer during these two visits, marrying my observation with what I learned from reading some ancient religious text, led me to some of the conclusions I now hold. It is not as if it was the first time I was visiting these two places, it was just that it was the first time I came to ruminate on the subject of why man may have been created in line with how the human body functions with relation to ‘work’, from what I observed during my visit. This new understanding of the human anatomy created a very strong effect in me and led me to begin to question the dogmas that had plagued my head long before the visit. I began to give deeper consideration to a particular story in one of the most ancient religious writings in the history of man, and in doing so, I began to gain some understanding about an alternative explanation to the common story of how man came about. I believe the real reason why to get the sort of body build one wanted, one needed to work very hard at it and to get the shape one didn't want, one needed to do nothing is because this is how the human body was created to function from the very beginning. If anyone is in doubt of this, he or she should just lay about, eat as much junk as they can, and all things being equal, in a few months, they would marvel at how thoroughly out of shape they have become. Staying fit and work, physical body exertion and regular exercise all go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other in most cases. This is why, in considering the fitness expert or the story of the labourer, something about the story of particular group in the ancient Sumerian writings struck me.

Man was made to work. To till the ground. And staying fit and healthy relatively speaking is supposed to be one of the off shoot of going about this simple and most basic duty of man. This is what I was able to gather from reading the story of the Anunnaki. Who are the Anunnaki and what has their story got to tell us about man, work and exercise that the above scenario of the labourer and the potbellied office man has helped to 'prove'? To start with, the Anunnaki is an ancient Sumerian term which was given to the beings who are believed to have come down to earth and pro-created or engineered Homo sapiens in the past. The word Anunnaki translates as “those who Anu sent from heaven to earth”. The term Anunnaki is not strange to our religion as almost every religious text known to man today made some reference to them one way or the other. In the Christian Holy Book they are called ‘Nephilim’, meaning “To fall down to Earth or to land” and ‘Eloheem’, meaning “These Beings”. In Ashuric or Syriac (Arabic) they are called ‘Jabaariyn’, meaning “the mighty ones”. In Aramaic (Hebrew) they are known as ‘Gibborim’, meaning “The Mighty or Majestic ones”. Even in the Egyptian term, the Anunnaki are called the ‘Neteru’. So, from these sampling of some of the oldest and most sacred religious texts, we see that the Anunnaki or their story is not what we should treat with levity if we are to dislodge our minds from dogmatic beliefs that plagues many of us today. Now, it is not only the religious texts that demonstrates knowledge of the Anunnaki, even recent scientific discovery has something to tell us about them, their existence and their story.
 
According to Dr Malachi York of the Sacred Nubian Teaching, on July 20, 1976, Viking I took a photograph of an odd looking plateau in the plains of what is known as Cydonia on its 35th orbit of Mars. On that photo, Frame 35ª72 showed what looked like a mile wide human face which is today known as The “Face On Mars.” It is believed in some quarters that NASA kept this quiet and wrote it off as “an oddity of light and shading.” Viking II landed on September 3, 1976 in about 1,800 miles away from Viking I. Space engineers Vincent Diperto and Greg Molenar, later checked into the Viking’s photo file, they discovered that 35 days later, on a different orbit that the Viking had caught the Martian “Sphinx” on Frame 70ª13. The engineers enhanced the photos and came to the conclusion that the face was of artificial intelligence and that there was a huge 5 sided pyramid lying nearby. Richard C. Hoagland, a NASA scientist, made a claim that a place on Mars named Cydonia has the ruins of an entire Martian city full of pyramids, which are geometrically aligned with the face and the larger 5 sided pyramid! Can you imagine an entire city on Mars? What connection does this finding have with the Anunnaki you may want to ask? Well, the ancient Sumerians in their writing tells us that the Anunnaki are from a faraway world and landed first on Mars before coming to earth. If the story of this find is true, then we have some sort of ‘proof’ of the Sumerian text about the Anunnaki. Today, there are those who believe the Anunnaki set up city bases on mars 450,000 years ago before coming to earth. They believe the face that was pictured in Mars was an ancient marker for incoming extra-terrestrials to know about the project of homo-erectus to homo-sapiens. Those who hold this view believe that these cities are remnants of an ancient “Egyptian-like” civilization and that, after thier time Mars, in their quest from solid minerals, The Anunnaki came to this planet, which they then called, among many other names, Gaea. Whether or not this story is true I cannot tell, but something about this story caught my fancy. It is believed that when they came to earth, the Anunnaki broke into groups and built settlements on different part of the earth. Those who hold this view believe it was one of these cities that Cain of the bible went to. They asked the question: If Adam, Eve, and Cain were the only beings on the planet after Abel’s death, then who did Cain marry, from whom was the mark God that placed on him after he killed his brother a protection or who built the city God banished him to?

Of all the religious writings available to man today, The Sumerians in thier writings were the first to record the presence and story of the Anunnaki. They claim the Anunnaki gave them advanced information on the creation of the solar system and all the planets in and out of this solar system. They also claim the Anunnaki taught them how to build great cities, farming and how to build craft that could fly in air. It is difficult to doubt the Sumerian claim because it is a fact today that the Sumerian had information about the solar system which they wrote in their religious texts that scientists today are only now beginning to figure out. So, from where did they get the information about the solar system if their story about the Anunnaki is not true? The ancient Sumerians in their writing also spoke of the reason the Anunnaki came to earth, what they did, the conflicts between them about the mining (one of the major reasons they came), which led to the making of man. Now, here's the story that caught my fancy.
 
Like I have pointed out, according to the Sumerians, one of the reason the Anunnaki came was for the purpose of mining. It is already established that when the Anunnaki came to earth they divided themselves into groups and settled in. Now, among these groups, the ones that were mining gold consisted of two groups one of which were called Eloheem. It is said that, considering how difficult it was to work the ground, after sometime, the Anunnaki who were working in the mines did not want to continue doing the work themselves. Instead they wanted to make some beings to do their work for them. Beings with the capability to replenish and multiply. Soon, thier distaste for the tedious mining work led to dissatisfaction which in turn led to a rebellion against the higher class of Anunnaki. This mutiny soon led to an outright revolt. In an attempt to negotiate peace and avoid a total war, one of the Anunnaki, Enqi, suggested that a being be created that would be the ‘Abd’, meaning “servants” of the Anunnaki that will work the mines for them. The other Anunnaki agreed. And thus began the breeding of Adam (Zakar) and Hawah (Nekaybaw), who were the first homo-sapiens. The Anunnaki it is said, decided to create what we called ‘Amelu’ in Aramaic (Hebrew) meaning “Worker” (see Genesis 2:5 and 3:19) to do the work for them. Man or Adamites were not created from nothing, instead the Anunnaki took a being that was already on the earth who had come about by way of the process of evolution and reengineered him into what they wanted. This being was “Genus Homo” or Ape-man/Ape-woman. Binding upon it the image (the inner genetic makeup) of the Anunnaki themselves. They upgraded Genus Homo and “jumped the gun” on evolution and brought man (Homo sapiens) into existence from among the countless ape people around then. Is this why scientist can’t explain why Homo sapiens has only been around for some 49,000 years or? I cannot provide an answer for this question. Now, this may sound like some tales by the moonlight, yes. I would have dismissed it as such if the Bible, one of the holiest and respected religious books known to man did not re-echo this same thoughts in what many have termed a distorted version in the story of creation. That we, Homo sapiens, human beings, were a solution to a problem is written in the Sumerian text, a thing confirmed in the Bible book of Genesis 2:5,
“....And there was no MAN to till the ground...”
It is a worthy point to note that the word that was used in Hebrew for man is Adam which is pronounced Aw-Dawm, this Adam was not a single person but rather what may be called Adamah “Those who are of the ground”, a tribe of human beings called Adamites who can be found in Genesis 5:2,
“Male and Female created he them, and he blessed them and called thier name Adam, in the day when they were created….”
Since we know that even the Bible confirms that man was created to work the ground, will it be wrong if we argue that this quote is actually a reference to the primitive workers, our fore fathers, genetically engineered or created by the Anunnaki to work the mines for them?

According to the ancient Sumerian text, the chief scientist Enqi and the chief medical (ever wondered why the symbol of modern medicine is still a staff entwined with a snake?) officer Ninti of the Anunnaki, according to the records, used genetic manipulation and what may be referred to as In-vitro fertilisation, which is fertilisation of a biological entity or process developed or maintained in a controlled, non-living environment, as a laboratory vessel; or in glass tubes as depicted on the seal of an ancient Sumerian cylinder.
This was done in a laboratory called Shimti meaning “House where the wind of life is breathed in”, or what Christians call the Garden of Eden.

This, like I mentioned earlier, appears a simple story, yet for deep thinkers it is not. It is believed by many that the Biblical story of creation is a corruption of the story of the Sumerian about the Anunnaki. There are some strong reasons to believe this assertion is true because even the Bible, as many believe, is not the oldest religious book, and many of the stories in it are not original to it. Before I conclude this piece, let me quickly make a point about what I think about the evolution of man and that of the Anunnaki.

Today, almost everyone agrees evolution is a fact. In fact, there are religious groups today who, in trying to keep up with modern discoveries, who believe and argue that 'God' created man by means of evolution. I know one natural question from the foregoing that any thinking reader may want to ask is, 'if the Anunnaki created man, who created them?' well, I won't claim I have the answer yet I know, from other sources that, though the Anunnaki did play a major role in our evolutionary process, the “spiritual evolution” of the Anunnaki is different from that of humans. Human beings, it is believed, have 360 degree of what is called will or will power. When 180 degree of agreeable overcomes the 180 degree of disagreeable, a person takes step towards becoming an Eloheem (remember the bible verse that says '....ye are gods...'?, well, we have a chance to grow into it). A human goes from an infant, a weak stage, to an Adult then an old man, back to a weak stage again. This is the evolutionary route of man, not the Anunnaki, therefore, no need to be surprise why they helped us up some rung of the ladder of evolution much like an adult helps a child up a flight of stair.

If man was made to work, any wonder why a man who works or engages in regular exercises is healthier and fit as it were than the one who lazy around? Isn't it obvious that if we want to feel better, have more energy and perhaps even live longer, we should look inwards and ask ourselves why we were made in the first instance? We were made to work. This is what the Sumerian text told us. And the health benefits of this in light of recent discoveries are hard to ignore. The benefits of exercise are ours for the taking, regardless of our age, sex or physical ability. Medical science has today proven what the Sumerian wrote in their religious many years ago, that man was made for physical activities. Because physical activities (either exercise or rigorous work) can help prevent excess weight gain or help maintain weight loss. I can't imagine that the workers that the Anunnaki made were some overweight creatures tilling the ground with their beefy hands. No matter what one's current weight, being active boosts high-density lipoprotein (HDL), or "good," cholesterol and decreases unhealthy triglycerides. This keeps our blood flowing smoothly, which decreases the risk of cardiovascular diseases. In fact, regular physical activity can help you prevent or manage a wide range of health problems and concerns, including stroke, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, depression, and certain types of cancer, arthritis and falls and so on. Hard work and exercise can even improves people’s mood, not to add that in line with the real reason for creating man, work can boosts the energy needed to get the job done. For those who feel they may not have the physical strength, simply taking a walk, going out for shopping or engaging in simple household chores can improve muscle strength and boost endurance. Man was made to work.....'…to till the ground....' The Sumerian taught us this, the Bible confirmed it.

Satan. The Devil. Lucifer. When you hear these words what comes to your mind?
After a careful study of the figure we have all come to identify as Satan, and a closer look at the various description of ‘him’ in most religious texts and even in the Holy Bible, I came off with a few questions. Who really is the devil? Can we justifiably blame all the evil in our world today on ‘him’? Why are all the stories in almost all the religious writings about the ‘evil creature’ called Satan revolved around some sort of a reptilian serpent or some flying, speaking and eyes opening wise snake creature? Is there some sort of a mix up somewhere in the story of Satan as it has been transmitted to us over the centuries? Is it possible, like Eric Von Daniken and some researchers claim, that the figure we call Satan is a victim of some deliberate attempt to paint a benevolent creature black in some clandestine move that they have described as a ‘Satan Conspiracy’?
Join me as I attempt to find some answers to these and numerous other questions in the article, ‘MEET LUCIFER: A Re-examination of Our Concept of Satan’, one of many to come in the EROTISEIS series.

https://akanbiafeso./2015/12/10/meet-lucifer-a-re-examination-of-our-concept-of-satan/