A Harare Central prison guard, Ronald Gurajena, who was reported to his bosses for a number of allegations including stealing prisoners’ food, selling it, getting drunk on the proceeds, and then opening up his trousers to underwear level, was set up by his girl friend, Zim Eye has reported.

The website is said to be in possession of exclusive evidence revealing that Ms Roselyn Mehlomakulu who claimed that Mr Gurajena on Christmas day stole food belonging to prisoners, sold them, and within an hour quickly became drunk from the beer he bought from the proceeds, is actually an ex-girlfriend of Gurajena’s.

She has denied ever being in love with Gurajena.

Her claims against Mr Gurajena included gay stunt-apparent photos snapped of her boyfriend standing exposing his underwear while somewhat ‘affectionately’ holding another man during a beer binge she alleged was made possible through stolen prisoners’ food stuffs.

The photographer was actually Ms Mehlomakulu herself. Mehlomakulu who is based in South Africa had been visiting her then lover at the just ended Christmas holiday period.

But Mehlomakulu said she was only visiting a neighbour at the time of the incident, was not related to Gurajena at all when she says that she witnessed several prisoners being made to carry food stuffs from inside the prison to hand them at Mr Gurajena’s house. Further investigations carried out by ZimEye however reveal that Mehlomakulu was in fact phycially present in Gurajena’s house at the time of the incident and was also the very photographer of the footage that has been circulating on the internet to date.

The photographs and video footage do not contain any prisoners as alleged and Mehlomakulu herself has admitted she has no evidence whatsoever of the alleged theft of prisoners handouts.

But she still insisted:

“I saw it myself! All this took place inside the prison baracks at Newlands Prison on the 25th December 2012 and I saw it myself”, said Ms Mehlomakulu of the incident which however she only reported two weeks later.

She claimed she was concerned about the welfare of prisoners and was morally disgusted by the alleged abuse in the department which however ZimEye has been told Gurajena does not even work in.

“Prison Guard Gurajena stole donated foods – like peanut butter, rice and cooking oil,” she alleged.

“The items were taken from the storerooms; I saw prisoners knocking the door saying: Sheff, we have come with your stuff, said Mehlomakulu.

She added:

“At this time it was around past 5PM and all this occurred inside the Newlands barracks.

Gurajena had a friend (name withheld) who was seen doing the same thing and drinking beer soon afterwards, she alleged at the time.

“I saw them myself, two prisoners leaving the prison… This Ronald started selling the dovi at around past 6. They must be stopped from doing this. This food has been donated to prisoners”, said Mehlomakulu.

Soon after reporting the case to bosses Mehlomakulu was quick to inform this reporter that Gorejena was being investigated by his seniors at work.

She even told this reporter she is going to stand in court to testify against Gurajena for the alleged theft of prisoners’ handouts. It was however not clear if a police case had been opened or not.

But recorded messages and undeniable, verified Facebook sms reveal that Mehlomakulu had a gripping love affair for several months and regularly referred to Gurajena as ‘honey’, ‘darling’ and sometimes as ‘Baba Vemwana'(father of my child). In another message she told him she was promtly sending him money from South Africa.

Mehlomakulu said to be 39 years, six years older than her ex-boyfriend who is 33, brought strong liquour from South Africa which intoxicated the prison guard to the point of stripping, during a function which was actually her birthday, Gurajena has said.

Gurajena would have lost his job by now had it not been for the trail of undeniable evidence proving existence of the love affair. When confronted with the evidence, Mehlomakulu at first denied but within a few minutes finally succumbed and crept into silence confirming her deliberate malice.

Who Sinned That This Man Was Born Blind?
A biblical study of John 9:1-3

Who sinned that this man was born blind?

Get the code to add this video to your MySpace profile / website.

The question, “Why did this happen?” is often found on the lips of those who witness evil. Such was the case when Jesus and his disciples once encountered a man who had been born blind. The disciples asked whether it was the man’s sin or his parents’ sin that caused his blindness. Jesus said it was neither and healed the man—setting a beautiful example of never blaming the victim but taking action to help those who are hurting. Unfortunately, rather than blame the victim, some people still use this passage to blame God for the man’s blindness, and the way it reads in most versions does make it seem as if God made the man blind for the purpose of healing him. The NIV is typical:

John 9:1-3
(1) As he [Jesus] went along, he saw a man blind from birth.
(2) His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
(3) “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

Could it be true that this man’s blindness was part of some master plan, and was “so that” the work of God may be manifest in his life? Why would God make someone blind for the better part of his life just to heal him someday? To prove that He could? So God can get glory? Surely God, who is love, could find a less injurious way to glorify Himself. Afflicting someone just to gain glory by stopping his or her affliction sounds more like the work of Satan than of God.

The Bible says that Jesus came to destroy the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8). His ministry was to heal those oppressed by Satan (Acts 10:38). Nowhere do the Gospels portray Jesus as healing those oppressed by God. Rather than God, it is Satan who is the source of evil. He is the one who has authority over all the kingdoms of the world (Luke 4:5 and 6), and it is Jesus’ job to crush his head (Gen. 3:15). The Lord did, and still does, wage war on the Devil’s kingdom by first “binding the strong man” and then “plundering his goods” (Mark 3:22-27). The strong man is the Devil, the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), who has the power of death (Heb. 2:14). Scripture says that the entire world lies under his demonic control (1 John 5:19), and what Jesus did and is still doing is to interrupt Satan’s evil agenda by healing and delivering as many people as will look to him for help. There is no room in this scenario for God to be blinding people, for that would be contradictory to His nature and character. To say God did this is to ignore the spiritual war portrayed throughout Scripture.

So why then does this verse seem to say that the man’s blindness was for the purpose of manifesting God’s work? Because it was translated that way from the Greek by modern translators. But, thankfully, it does not have to be translated that way. This traditional rendering stems from a theology dictating that God is in control of everything that happens on earth—whatever happens is His master plan unfolding as He always knew it would. Given that this view is fraught with unsolvable problems, biblically, practically, and emotionally, it is good to know that another valid translation exists. John 9:3 is better rendered, “But let the works of God be displayed in him.” So the whole passage would read as follows:

“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” Jesus answered, “but let the works of God be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent me while it is day…”

This translation makes good sense, biblically. Jesus shows us that the question to ask is not, “Who sinned?” but “What can we do to help the situation?” He does not leave us with some mysterious purpose for the man’s blindness, but fights for his healing, rejecting the disciples’ desire to point fingers at who is to blame. This also fits well with the context, as Jesus goes on to talk about the necessity of working the works of God while he can.

How did we get from “this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in him” to “let the work of God be displayed in him”? These two translations are very different, but by understanding the Greek grammar behind the phrase we can see why the latter is to be preferred. John 9:3 can be rendered as a command rather than an expression of why the man was born blind.

Purpose Clause or Command Clause?

Now don’t let the word “grammar” intimidate you; this is going to be easy. You know how we often use language to express our intentions or our purpose. For instance, the sentence, “I read the Bible to grow closer to God” states that my purpose for reading the Bible is to grow closer to God. Sometimes we use commands: “Read your Bible; grow closer to God!” The Greek language also has ways of expressing purpose and command, and one such way is by using the word hina—usually translated “that” or “so that”—along with a verb in the subjunctive mood. (Don’t worry if you do not know what the subjunctive mood is, all you need to know for this study is that it is just a particular way the verb looks). When the Greek uses hina with a subjunctive verb, it can express either purpose or command. [1] That is, it can express why something happened or it can express an order to make something happen. The same form was used to say both. It looks exactly the same, but the meaning is totally different. When hina with a subjunctive verb communicates purpose it is called a purpose clause, but when the same form expresses a command it is called a command clause. The reader must determine from the context whether purpose or a command is meant.

Let’s look at some examples from the Bible. Remember, a purpose clause indicates why something happened; it shows the intention behind the action. Here’s a hina + subjunctive purpose clause:

Matthew 19:13 (NRSV)
…children were being brought to him in order that [Greek=hina + subjunctive] he might lay his hands on them and pray.

These children were brought to Jesus with the purpose that he would lay his hands on them and pray, and that is expressed in Greek by the word hina (translated “in order that”) with the verb for “lay” in the subjunctive mood.

Now, here’s that same Greek form—hina with a subjunctive verb—in another verse also about laying on of hands, but this time it is translated as a command:

Mark 5:23b (NRSV)
…come and lay [Greek=hina + subjunctive] your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live.

The hina + subjunctive clause was translated, “…lay your hands on her…,” which is a command. Since the form is the same, how did the translators know to render the first example as a purpose clause but the second as a command? The answer, as we said above, is the context. The translator’s understanding of how the passage fits into its context determines his opinion as to how the Greek is best brought into English, whether by a purpose or command clause.

Because the Greek form looks the same, there is sometimes disagreement among translators as to whether purpose or command is meant. This disagreement shows up in the varying translations of Mark 5:12, for instance, when the demons pleaded to go into the herd of swine. Some versions translate the second part of their plea as a purpose clause, “Send us into the pigs so that we may enter them” (cp. NASB; HCSB; KJV; ASV). But most modern versions translate it as a command: “Send us into the pigs. Let us enter them” (cp. ESV; NIV; NRSV; NET; NJB [2]).

Interestingly, we see the same split between the translations with regard to Titus 3:13. Speaking of sending out some saints on a journey, most modern versions read, “See that they lack nothing,” which is a command (cp. ESV; NIV; NRSV; NET; NJB); as opposed to “so that they lack nothing,” which expresses purpose (cp. NASB; HCSB; KJV; ASV). [3]

What about John 9:3?

We have now seen that when the Greek text has hina with a verb in the subjunctive mood, it could be giving us the purpose for why something happened, or it could be expressing a command. How does this help us understand the record about the man born blind?

Since the controversial phrase in John 9:3 has the hina + subjunctive form, it can be either a purpose or command clause. Most translations render it as a purpose clause. “[He was born blind] so that God’s works might be revealed in him” (NRSV). [4] But this translation has serious consequences to the meaning of the text. It makes the man’s blindness intentionally caused by God, such that he could not see for the better part of his life simply for the purpose of being healed. Such an interpretation goes against the teaching of Scripture, that God is love (1 John 4:16), has plans not to harm us (Jer. 29:11), and that it is Satan who is our enemy, the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4) who has the power of death (Heb. 2:14). Realizing this, a number of scholars assert that John 9:3 is best read as a command clause, “But let the works of God be revealed in him.” [5] Greg Boyd, for instance, writes the following:

The verse should not be interpreted as suggesting that God’s will is behind this man’s blindness… The original verse does not say that “he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed.” The Greek simply has hina with the aorist subjunctive passive of phaneroo (“to manifest”) and can readily be translated as, “But let the works of God be manifested.” [6]

Thus, the Greek is understood just like Ephesians 5:33, which has the same construction: “Let the wife see that [Gk=hina + subjunctive] she respects her husband.” [7]

Conclusion

The translation, “let the works of God be revealed in him,” fits best with the context of the verse, which is that Christ must heal people while his ministry is in operation (John 9:4 and 5). It also fits best with the entire scope of the Four Gospels, because while Jesus was performing his ministry, he was destroying the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8) and healing those oppressed by Satan (Acts 10:38). Therefore, rendering the verse as though the man’s blindness was the mysterious purpose of God is unfounded. Does blindness sound like God’s works? Was this man oppressed by God? May it never be! Seeing John 9:3 as a command clause exonerates God from the charge of blinding a child “for His glory.”

Jesus corrected any and all finger pointing as to who was to blame for the man’s blindness. He instructed the disciples as to the proper response when they saw such a man. He then modeled what he came to do—to destroy the work of the Devil and heal those oppressed by him. He said, “Let the works of God be manifest in him,” showing compassion for the man. Then he turned to his disciples and reminded them that they must work the works of God while it is day. Rather than painting a picture of a capricious God who makes a man blind for the purpose of healing his blindness, this passage reveals a loving God who sent His Son to manifest His works by healing a man oppressed by the Devil.

Why men will ALWAYS cheat (even if they love their partners and don’t want to leave them)
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
UPDATED: 17:37 EST, 7 January 2012
Comments (591)
Share

A provocative new study shows that men who don’t cheat are setting themselves up for ‘socially-compelled sexual incarceration.’
Men who cheat, however, gives them the best of both worlds, sociologist Eric Anderson says.
And most of them who do still want to stay with their partner – they just want to have more sex on the side.

Prone to wander: A sociologist says that if and when men cheat, it’s only to fulfill carnal desire
The American sociologist who teaches at the University of Winchester in England says monogamy has ostracised men from doing what they most want to do.
He writes in his new book The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating, that cheating is the norm, not the exception to it, and it’s high time that people start embracing ‘sexually open relationships that coexist without hierarchy or hegemony.’

More…
Today is the WORST day for infidelity as cheating site sees 250% rise in new members
Most photos reported to Facebook as ‘offensive’ are just unflattering, engineer reveals – and they won’t help with that
In the study, Mr Anderson surveyed 120 undergraduate men – both gay and straight. He found that 78 per cent of those with partners cheated, ‘even though they said that they loved and intended to stay with their partner.’

Professor Eric Anderson says men cheat because they simply like sex
In an interview with the Huffington Post, he says men want to be emotionally monogamous, though their ‘body craves sex with other people somatically.’
For the purpose of raising a family, he says, it’s the emotional – and not the sexual factor – that counts.
He says: ‘Our physical desires don’t die; they just change from our partner to other people…When the sex dies, the relationship has just begun.’
To Mr Anderson, it’s better for men to cheat and repent for it, since telling their partner that they want sex outside the relationship is a tried-and-true relationship-ender.
‘When men cheat for recreational sex – not affairs – they DO love their partners,’ he tells the Huffington Post. ‘If they didn’t, they would break up with them.’

Societal norms: His book, The Monogamy Gap, says the institution is ‘failing’ men
He states that the feelings of betrayal many partners inevitably feel after a man cheats is simply because of a ‘socialised victimhood.’
The Huffington Post noted that in the study, men were perfectly alright with sex outside of a relationship for them, but not for their partners.
To this, Mr Anderson says it’s not necessarily fair, but he says monogamy often drives men to pursue sex with another in the future.
The sample size and targeted group is questionable to stand alone as a study, the Media Research Centre Network said, and asking undergraduate men about monogamy – in a time many are exploring and pushing boundaries.
In the article, the writer criticises the idea that society is to blame for the issue and makes it an impossible standard for men to uphold.
MOST READ NEWS

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083692/Why-men-ALWAYS-cheat-love-partners-dont-want-leave-them.html#ixzz2IHFOlS14
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Met here is china the walking (Edited) aka miss f++ dem to them death. This is what she wear go Juggist party. Walking (Edited)mi no hab a clue weh u a try do to yuhself but no Badda feel like chu yuh hab the channel bag it Mek yuh outfart look any betta. Yah ago Mek them lock u up again fi channel enuh. Me all see yuh put up pic bout yuh cook fi the “booooooooooo” :/ china yuh fi memba say yuh p+++ like to kill, and we no need another funeral china. We no need it. Try set the man free before death come knock PON him door.