THE SENDER ASKS:-

Title: A mussi dis why di country suh SALT?! …

If nuttn else dis story ya mek mi chuckle well…

Salty Ritual Leaves Youth Ministry Staff Wary
Published: Friday | January 11, 2013 11 Comments

Lewis
Some staff members at the Ministry of Youth and Culture were this week left perplexed at what they deemed ‘strange’ happenings at the ministry’s St Andrew headquarters when salt was used during a religious ritual to ‘bless’ the office.

According to at least three staff members, shortly after persons reported for work on Tuesday morning, Culture Minister Lisa Hanna and acting Permanent Secretary Sydney Bartley appeared with the Reverend Dr Marjorie Lewis, president of the United Theological College of the West Indies, and called a staff meeting.

“It started like a devotion to bless the office at the start of the new year. Then they took out the salt which was in small plastic cups, said a prayer and told us to keep it on our desk as a reminder that we are the salt of the earth and that it will keep away evil spirits,” said a staff member who asked not to be named.

“After that they went around to all the offices and sprinkled the salt while praying.”

Another staff member, who was also wary of being identified, said some persons took the cup of salt, while others refused. The employee said they felt very uncomfortable because they found the ritual quite strange.

“Everyone was wondering what was going on. We thought it was very strange and several persons were scared. It was a strange feeling in the office for the rest of the day. Some were even saying it was evil,” the staff member said.

“When they left, persons were sweeping salt out of their offices.”

Christian tradition

When contacted, Lewis said that in Christian tradition, one of three elements have always been used in blessing – salt, water or oil – so there was nothing strange or untoward about what she did.

She said using Matthew chapter five verse 13, the theme of the devotion was ‘You are the Salt of the Earth’ and she simply used the substance to symbolise that.

“The idea was that they should keep it on their desk to remind them of what their role is. I pointed out to everyone that it was optional. No one was forced to do anything. I told them if they were uncomfortable, they did not have to participate,” said Lewis.

“Salt does two things – as a preservative and to prevent decay as well as to add flavour to something bland. So the main point was that this was a symbol of being a positive influence in your work that you are the salt of the earth.”

Surprising and unfortunate

Lewis said she found the misunderstanding both surprising and unfortunate, believing she had clearly explained the reason. However, she said, if persons had concerns they could have spoken to her.

Bartley also expressed surprise that there was a concern among the staff, especially because later that day several persons had expressed that they found the devotion quite refreshing.

“The aim was simply to start the year on a positive note in worship with all the staff coming together before we went into the first staff meeting for the year. We used the theme ‘You are the Salt of the Earth’ because we are the Ministry of Youth and Culture with responsibility for youth and the culture of the country. We hold a large responsibility to ensure that we are the salt in the pot that will make the ingredients palatable and good for the development and advancement of our country,” he noted.

Bartley, who said even now he has his cup of salt on his desk, was appointed to act as permanent secretary on January 1 after the post became vacant following last month’s departure of Robert Martin who officially took up duties as director general in the Ministry of Finance last week Wednesday. Bartley was the principal director of the Culture Division.

The State-run Assets Recovery Agency says it will be going ahead with efforts to confiscate the assets of former Tivoli Gardens strongman Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke. But the agency has formally applied for permission to discontinue the suit it had filed seeking orders to confiscate the assets of Kingston businessman Justin O’Gilvie, his wife Maxine and his two businesses. The Assets Recovery Agency was represented by attorney-at-law Michael Hylton in the Supreme Court today. The application to withdraw the claim stemmed from an order from the Supreme Court last December in which Justice Lennox Campbell issued certain directives when he lifted the orders freezing O’Gilvie’s assets. Following the in camera hearing today, Hylton told our news centre that the Assets Recovery Agency decided not to proceed with the case because it did not have the evidence to do so and witnesses were not available. O’Gilvie’s assets were frozen in 2010. The State had also seized the assets of Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke, who was about to be extradited to the United States on drugs and weapons charges.

At the same time, the Agency has withdrawn claims against the assets against Coke’s girlfriend, Stephanie Gayle; and the estate of his mother Patricia Halliburton. Halliburton died last year. Their lawyers rejected claims that the assets of Gayle and Halliburton were obtained illegally. They argue that the money laundering offense which the agency was relying on cannot be accepted since their clients obtained their assets in the 1990s and the money laundering offence under the 2007 Proceeds of Crime Act is not retroactive.
In the meantime, another case against O’Gilvie remains in the Sutton Street Resident Magistrate’s Court where the Assets Recovery Agency is seeking to forfeit $2.9 million belonging to him. The money was seized during a raid in 2010 on O’Gilvie’s company Incomparable Enterprises. O’Gilvie is claiming that the authorities actually removed $5.9 million which he legitimately earned from his business ventures.

http://go-jamaica.com/news/read_article.php?id=42305

Demanding S*X in the TOILET costs a woman’s LIFE

A HEATED altercation over conjugal rights turned fatal for a Dema woman who was allegedly axed to death by her husband, a polygamist, following her demands to be intimate with him in a toilet.

After allegedly bludgeoning his first wife, Godeon Mabwe turned against his second wife who was asleep in a separate room and struck her on the neck with the same axe before disappearing from the scene.

The incident which left Chakadenga business centre villagers dumbfounded, occurred on November 23 last year during the night just after the family had retired to bed.

It is alleged on the day in question, commotion started during the day when Mabwe’s wives – Allerta Mapfumo and Maibaki Ndabale – accused their husband of failing to sustain an erection each time they needed him most.

During the night of the fateful day, there was a heated argument between Mabwe and Ndabale after the latter demanded to have sex in the toilet since Mapfumo had gone to sleep in a separate room. Mabwe, however, allegedly declined the request citing exhaustion after a day’s work and lacked interest, a reaction which angered Ndabale, prompting a more intense squabble.

As the situation turned volatile and being unable to contain his fury, Mabwe allegedly picked an axe from his workshop, struck Ndabale once on the neck. She collapsed and died on the spot.

Still armed with the same axe, Mabwe proceeded to the room where Mapfumo was asleep and struck her once on the neck before disappearing from the scene leaving the axe behind.

Fortunately, Mapfumo survived the attack after she was rushed to Chitungwiza General Hospital where she was treated. On Monday Mabwe appeared before Chitungwiza regional magistrate Estere Chivasa charged with his wife’s attempted murder.

He pleaded guilty to the charge of attempting to kill Mapfumo and told the court that he was not aware of what possessed him to act in the manner he did.

Chivasa remanded Mapfumo in custody to January 21 for sentence after referring him for psychiatric evaluation. He will also be expected to be tried at the High Court for Ndabale’s murder. Prosecutor Luke Mutupe appeared for the State.

Not Merely Academics

The study of godly sexual behavior is not just an academic endeavor. There are few things that influence people as powerfully as the sexual drive, so it is no wonder that Satan uses it to destroy lives and negatively influence society. Sexual attraction has profoundly influenced the course of mankind, and both history and the Bible testify to this. The book of Genesis alone has many examples. Both Abraham and Isaac were afraid that they would be killed by men who wanted their beautiful wives (Gen. 12:10-20; 20:1-17; 26:7-11). Jacob was so attracted to Rachel that he served her father Laban for 14 years so he could marry her (Gen. 29:15-30). Shechem the Hivite so desired Jacob’s daughter Dinah that he talked his entire tribe into being circumcised just so he could marry her (Gen. 34:1-29). Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, lusted after his father’s wife, and his adultery cost him his birthright (Gen. 35:22; 49:4). Joseph spent years in Pharaoh’s dungeon because a powerful woman framed him when he would not give in to her sexual advances (Gen. 39:6b-20).

The rest of the Bible and history confirm these accounts. The records of Samson and Delilah and David and Bathsheba are well known, but an intriguing and less known incident of sexual attraction is recorded in the book of Numbers. The king of Moab, an enemy of Israel, hired Balaam the prophet to curse Israel and thus destroy them. When that failed, Balaam advised the Moabites to use the lure of the sex that was a part of the Moabite worship to turn the men of Israel away from God (Num. 31:8 and 16). The tactic was successful, and “the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods” (Num. 25:1 and 2). Balaam’s strategy worked because people can be easily led away from God by sexual attraction, which can blind the eyes and blur the mind. Just as sexual attraction can lead a person away from God, it can also influence people to be godly, but godliness is achieved when the sexual drive is restrained and channeled by the force of the will to follow godly standards of behavior. Historically, sexual attraction more often than not has led to ungodliness. Understanding the powerful forces involved in the sex drive and determining what is and what is not godly behavior can be a source of blessing both to an individual and to society.

Scripture is clear that God created two different sexes: “male and female” (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; Matt. 19:4). What Scripture states, and a quick look at the difference between the male and female body substantiates, medical science is confirming more and more: there is an intrinsic difference between men and women that is much more than “skin deep.” Some people today want to “deconstruct” the traditional gender identities of male and female, saying that mankind is really “gender neutral.” These people claim that any relation or role that either man or woman feels like fulfilling is fine, because the traditional roles were established only through social evolution anyway. That is not true, and efforts to “reconstruct” men and women to be gender neutral will eventually fail. Attempts to show that the historic concept of male and female is nothing more than “social programming” demonstrate a blindness to biological and psychological facts and are fundamentally in rebellion against God and His created order. Mankind is not the product of physical and social evolution, but was created in God’s image for a magnificent purpose. [1]

There are people who resent Christian morals and claim they are “narrow-minded” and “religiously based,” but that argument is valid only if Christianity is a false religion. If there is a God, and if the Bible is true, then Christian morals are grounded in reality and should be adhered to in order to live healthy and fulfilling lives. There is not a shred of evidence that a “sexually free” society is more “advanced” or more “liberated” than a sexually disciplined one. Instead, the Bible warns, and history teaches, that a sexually immoral society will be one in which people are hurt and hurting. The bonds formed in sex are real, and “breakups” hurt and leave scars. Often, envy, jealousy and violence accompany “sexual freedom.” As we already said, God designed men and women differently, and what each considers “romantic,” and their approach to sex in general, differs considerably. Marriage counselors generally testify that sex and money are the two issues that couples disagree about the most. Some would add communication, but that, for the woman, is usually bundled up in the “love and relationship” category. [2]

For a man to really love a woman the way she needs to be loved requires selfless giving, because her needs are different than his. It is by this selfless giving that both the man and the woman become more like Christ. It is easy to see why “free sex” will never make a great society. For example, a woman having sex with a man before marriage will not help him to become like Christ, because a man offered sex without commitment will not need to discipline himself to godly principles. He will not get to the point where he considers the woman’s needs above his own sexual desires, and thousands of years of prostitutes and harems proves this very well. [3] Thus the woman, who needs a romantic context that includes communication and the feeling of being special, will never receive what she needs from the man and will remain unfulfilled. The “sexually free” lifestyle, while it may sound good to some, is doomed to fail. Men become more selfishly focused on what pleases them, and women, not getting the genuine love God designed them to receive, are then unfulfilled and often become hardhearted. [4]

Just as unrestrained sexual lust can ruin a life, so it can ruin a society. It is available to have a nation that is safe and secure, in which people are well-mannered, kind and helpful. A country can also get to the point that life is dangerous, where the “law of the jungle” is the rule and “every man is for himself.” The availability of sex without commitment hardens both men and women, and the Bible warns against it: “Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness” (Lev. 19:29). This warning certainly flies in the face of the argument that the availability of sex is somehow related to a mature society, an argument advanced by social liberals. But what Leviticus says can be clearly understood: in an environment of sex without commitment, men never learn to be giving and godly. Instead they see women as objects of their selfish desire. This, of course, leads to men not respecting women. Is this not the case today? We are living in a society where “sexual freedom” abounds. Are men more well-mannered than they were a generation ago? No, and thus we see that Leviticus is correct; there is more wickedness in a sexually free society. [5] It is axiomatic that the more immoral a society, the more difficult it is for an individual to be moral. Therefore, the wise person not only disciplines himself or herself sexually, but speaks up for godly rules and regulations in society.

Just as human beings are inherently sexual, they are also inherently spiritual. There is much more to us than just “flesh and electric impulses,” even if it cannot be examined under a microscope. In Scripture, God chooses to describe spiritual unfaithfulness to Him in sexual terms, such as “adultery,” “playing the harlot,” etc. Such language indicates the spiritual aspect of sex. One of the primary functions of sex is to illustrate the oneness that God intended for each of His people to have with Him, a oneness based upon our free will decisions to relinquish our right to ourselves and vulnerably open our hearts in giving worship to Him and receiving all He wants to give us. As Haffner observes:

Sex is a picture of worship that carries spiritual impact, but when it is reduced to a prosaic sport between consenting players for ego gratification and sensual pleasure, something more than archaic religious edict has been violated. Not having sex is not just maintaining moral purity for the sake of self-righteousness, and having sex is not just chipping notches on your bedpost to show how great a lover you are. Rather, sexual intercourse opens the way through an invisible, mystical veil into the spiritual realm. Within the covenantal shroud of marriage, a spirit of bonding entwines the participants and tightens the joy and depth and, yes, the feelings of belonging, and of knowing and being known, satisfying one of the greatest urges of our innermost being. [6]

The Bible says that when a man and woman have sexual intercourse, the two of them become “one flesh.” This is a spiritual reality that goes much deeper than the physical realm, and the Bible calls it “a profound mystery” (Eph. 5:32). Scripture clearly teaches that it is the act of sexual intercourse that makes a man and woman one flesh:

1 Corinthians 6:16
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

When a man visits a prostitute, neither one of them is looking for a relationship. They are both acting from purely selfish motives. Yet in spite of that, the spiritual reality is that they still become “one flesh.” [7] It is folly to deny that sex has a spiritual side to it. That spiritual element is one reason why obedience to God in sexual matters produces blessings, and why disobedience to Him can produce such bondage and suffering. Every Christian should want to obey God and receive the personal blessings that obedience brings.

While unbelievers will continue to seek to gratify “the cravings of [the] sinful nature and [follow] its desires and thoughts” (Eph. 2:3), Christians should have a different lifestyle, characterized by self control and concern for the spiritual growth of others.

An Unfaithful Man Explains: Why Men Cheat

We welcome reader questions, comments, and feedback here at SBM. Check out our SBM Mail series here for past submissions and you can submit your own questions using the Contact Us page. Today’s reader asks:
Dear SBM,
I just want to know why men cheat after begging a woman to take them back? And does he think that because she took him back that she’ll put up with it? My coworker was telling us about an argument he had with the mother of his baby in which he ended by telling her that he’s not changing. I could see where her anger was coming from to a degree, I mean he did cheat on her so she was expecting him to be grateful that she took him back, but women’s intuition also tells me that she expected him to miraculously turn into a new person. Just some background for you, he admits to having side pieces throughout their entire relationship (including her pregnancy) and they broke up a few months after the baby was born because she found some evidence of his indiscretions. They got back together a few months ago but he still says that he’s cheating and will continue to do so as long as he wants. From the way he describes their current relationship, it seems as though he has gotten even more comfortable and offers no apologies for his behaviors in and out of the house. Of course, I realize that I have only really gotten half of these stories and he could just be exaggerating, but I doubt it. Why does a cheater even want to be in a relationship if he’s decided that he’s not going to be faithful? And does it signal to him that he can continue to cheat if a woman takes him back?
I’ll start off by quoting some statistics for context. I read a story earlier this year that estimated between 15 percent of women and 20 percent of men are unfaithful. Women are less likely to get caught. Ninety-five percent of women and 83 percent of men reported they “successfully” cheated without their spouses ever finding out. These are married people so who knows how desolate the landscape of relationships and pseudo-relationships looks. I only point this out to note that there are a number of unfaithful people among us and many of them will never get caught (or so they believe). Specific to your friend’s situation, you seem to have two main questions:
1) Why does a cheater even want to be in a relationship if he’s decided that he’s not going to be faithful? 2) Does it signal to him that he can continue to cheat if a woman takes him back?

Why do cheaters cheat?
Women like to believe that they have a more sophisticated justification behind when and why they cheat – and it’s very possible they do. However, cheating is cheating so I’m not sure why folks are so caught up on being the morally superior in their immoral actions. That said, I’ll focus today on why I believe most men cheat.
While a lot of people have asked a similarly phrased question, I think this is the equivalent of asking why do people look for work when they already have a job? Most cheaters are in a relationship for the exact same reasons as their partner. It’s very possible they sincerely believe they like/love the person they’re cheating on. Men cheat because they don’t understand or don’t care about the impact of their actions. It’s a selfish act. These men haven’t learned to think outside of themselves or even if they do, they don’t care enough to stop. Although people attempt to confuse the two, whether or not you believe monogamy is natural is independent from the fact that the rules governing a monogamous relationship are pretty straight forward. Cheating is a conscious choice to break those rules.
Some people believe that if you truly love a person you would never cheat on them. I disagree, because that belief dictates that emotion is what drives people to cheat or remain faithful. In reality, there is far more logic involved in not cheating than emotion. I think we can all agree that Love is an emotion. Given the large number of people that cheat on their loved ones each and every day of the week, it is obviously not enough to stop people from cheating. That’s where logic comes into play. Love might keep you in a relationship, but it’s logic that keeps you from straying, especially when you believe you won’t get caught. Someone told me recently that men are as faithful as their options. This is only somewhat accurate. Most men have options. Honestly, being in a relationship might increase a man’s options considering there are a certain group of women that like to go after committed men – but that’s another blog for another day.
Most unfaithful men aren’t seeking out an additional relationship. In fact, most men aren’t even looking to replace or give up the relationship they already have. Unfaithful men are generally only seeking to satisfy physical needs. There is a smaller group of men who are looking for a woman to satisfy something they’re not getting at home – usually something ego based – but even these men are rarely looking to leave the woman they’re with. Going back to the job analogy, if a man has a job (or woman) that meets all of his basic needs except for one or two extras, he really has no motivation to leave this great job simply to go back out into the job market (dating scene).
In 9 out of 10 cases, men aren’t looking to replace the woman they already have. The exception would be if he meets another woman that clearly supersedes the woman he is already with. This is rare for a few reasons: 1) if you’re already in a relationship, it’s difficult to get to know another woman beyond the physical; 2) the woman he is already with has a head start because he’s familiar with her in his life; and 3) the only thing more amazing than how long some women will stay with an unfaithful man is how long a side-woman is willing to remain in the side-woman role.

Will a man continue to cheat if a woman takes him back?
This question is difficult to answer. The short answer is, “yes.” But, the longer answer is a man will continue to cheat for as long as he is a cheater at heart. Even if you do everything right, it is up to the man to be willing to change. If he isn’t ready, no amount of threats will make him be faithful to you (or any woman) if he is simply the type of man who habitually cheats. Although taking a man back or not taking a man back won’t dictate how faithful or unfaithful he will be in the future, continuing to stay with an unfaithful man without demanding change or holding him accountable will eventually enable his actions.
Haters gonna hate and cheaters gonna cheat

Cheating is a character flaw that a man has to address on his own. I don’t believe in the ‘once a cheater, always a cheater’ motto but I do believe a man has to want to change for himself if any such change will be sustained. If not, he’ll just revert back to his unfaithful ways over time. This is irrespective of the woman he is with. A true cheater will cheat on the perfect woman, because that is simply how he is designed.
Specific to your friend’s situation, it seems she has encountered – and continues to entertain – a man that not only has not changed, but one that has clearly stated he will not change. She is chasing a dream if she thinks she is going to inspire change in a man that doesn’t want to change for himself or her. If he ever does change, and in this instance I’m not sure he will, I can safely say it won’t occur one day before he’s ready. If your friend doesn’t want to wait that long, she should leave this man alone.
Are men’s reasons for cheating any different than women’s? Why would a man that knows he’s going to be unfaithful want to be in a relationship? Do you believe that once a cheater always a cheater? If not, what makes a cheater change and how can women tell the difference between a cheater who has reformed versus a cheater who is in remission?