Traditionalist

"I want to be someone's wife one day....... "

Those words, the honesty they were conveyed with at that moment in time, the simplicity of it all startled me. What was even more confounding was the bearer of the statement.

Here is a lady. Top of her class (herein at this moment in time making reference to her brains and not her sassy self). Which reminds me, why does top of her class have to invoke references in respect to sexuality and not intelligence? Seems intelligence as a  virtue was thrown out of the window when women realised that they could use their sexuality to manipulate members of the male species, a good number of whom have been overrun by the testosterone flowing in their system. It is even confusing when the lady happens to be intelligent and beautiful. Confusing for both genders it seems because the notion that a woman could be both intelligent and beautiful is impossible has been inculcated into the hearts of humanoids.

Yes I said it: humanoids.  Objects taking on the behaviour of human beings but their identity as human beings has been dissipated by twitter standards, Facebook standards, instagram, blogger and WordPress and the latest generation of identity-orphaned feminists. The said group of social technocrats suggesting that a lifelong institution of intimate companionship is for the weak and illiterate shaol minded folk. I am no longer certain that beings exist as an outright majority amongst homo sapiens sapiens now that a new generation of believers has cropped up. Believers who believe in anything else but the truth. Cultured to reject the truth that gives frame to their identity and take on every wave of backbone-less dogma that comes their way. Ingesting it all like infants whose noses have been pinched shut by their mothers in order that they may involuntarily swallow the syrup prescribed by the physician.

Beautiful, intelligent and willing to explore one of life's greatest gift to mankind:

The Boulevard of unfulfilled dreams

Our eyes met, but only for a brief moment.
Glances exchanged past the bars of captivity,
Did she notice me? Did she even notice that I was around?

Days of daydreaming preceeded nights of terror.
Not the kind of nightmares that involved witches and ghosts,
Dreams in which the tormentor is your object of desire.
Sweet dreams of oneness, but broken realities

My silence, my weakness,
I couldn't muster up the courage to talk,
Nothing beyond hello.
My silence my strength,
To be able to hold all the raging emotions in,
To resist the urge to reveal my heart.

That was then. Ten years ago.
All was forgotten, but not all was lost.
Till the day our eyes met again.
And the key to the cell was turned,
Locking myself inside once again.

Chance v. Purpose Part 2

One of the greatest tragedies in life is the lack of will to follow through your thoughts.

Every physical manifestation must be preceded by a mental creation. That is to say, everything that exists physically, as created by man, must have been initially conceived in the mind. Our clothes, houses, phones, cutlery computers, roads, bicycles, planes and guns. Virtually everything that is man-made. The mind of man is a very powerful thing. The creative power resident in the mind of man is unlike that in any other animal or natural being for that matter. It is the law of the universe that all things created in the physical must first be created in the mind. 

Imagination precedes logic.

Imagination is the factory responsible for coming up with new concepts. It conceives an impossible thought and breathes life into that through inspiration. If you talk to an artist, an entrepreneur or a trendsetter  they will inform you that imagination is key. Imagination is the driving force of creation. The spark behind innovation.Once in a while our minds conceive what may seem to be the impossible, from television sets that emit smells to loads of money to dating that girl who seems to be way out of your league. Imagination is important especially if the latter is to be made manifest.

Logic informs to a great extent, the path to be taken from imagination to the physical manifestation of that thought. Logic is the superhighway that connects these two points and in occasions where logic may fail, the creative process usually takes over. The creative process can happen to be on an occasion or two, defiant to the already pre-existing logical processes in play. The creative process is not the preserve of a few men, but an option available to all men. However, not all men have the courage to take the path when the opportunity arises, and those who choose to follow this path when it comes calling, are often labelled as madmen. Some may even term the creative process a miracle. This is especially where  those pursuing this new path pursue it aggressively and seem to be so sure of what they are doing yet there are no predecessors to validate his actions. In a lot of instances, this does not end up well, but tin those instances it does, a new process is created. The risks are greater but the rewards are higher. It is the price the unknown demands form all men who dare to pursue this path.

Science.

Science is man's way of understanding the superhighway talked about before. Science is a great tool that tries to explain the origin of things. No actually, tries to reasonably deduce the origin of all things created. Science is brilliant. It is systematic and reasonable. Science obeys rules and tests truths. It tries to logically arrange information and facts in a manner that could be best understood by human beings. However, it has one main Achilles heel. Science does not have the power to conceive. Science unfortunately or fortunately, is a servant of imagination. It is a servant of that which creates, a tool in the hands of a creative master. Logic in the same way is a servant of imagination. It is a servant of vision and could never become the master to the vision. Like in the same way, it is not enough to be on  a highway. There is no glory on being on Mombasa road if you are not heading to a destination that the road is responsible for linking you to. No one ever says they went for a trip to Thika superhighway. When someone calls me and I say I am on Thika road, the next question that will obviously follow is, where is Lelli heading to?

Creation v. Evolution

Evolution is a factor of creation. Evolution has no power to be original. It has no power to conceive something totally out of the blues. When mosquitoes evolve to resist certain strains of medicine, they do not become completely new creatures. They instead become mutated mosquitoes. Not moths or fireflies. It is only a creative power that can come up with a radically different species. Science, or in this case, the big bang, could not create. If it even exists, then the big bang must be the brainchild of a superior being. One that imagined and crafted the unthinkable and made it happen. 

At this point, it does not appear to me, that a tool (science) is capable of purposefully reasoning out such an intricate plan and execute it to the brilliance we now term as nature. It is illogical that a highway should be the centre of attention in the universe. and I say all this in respect to the universal law that every physical manifestation is preceded by a mental creation. Science obeys laws and rarely contradicts itself. I would highly recommend not studying science if that is the best excuse that a person could come up with the origin of creation. 

However, if science and not imagination is responsible for creation, it would just prove that science is a god with a mind and a superior being. Either way, we are all here because someone or something with a mind came up with a mental image of creation. . 

Chance v. Purpose part 1

One of the greatest tragedies in life is the lack of will to follow through your thoughts.
Men are very interesting creatures. We are blessed with the ability to reason, an ability that separates us from the rest of creation or in this case, animals. I doubt if plants posses the capacity to think, though I do not doubt they have the capacity to respond to a voice. If you doubt me, talk to a dedicated farmer. If you talk to enough of them, you will realize that some of them do engage in a peculiar behaviour. Some do talk to their plants in the same manner a lover would talk to his beloved. Always encouraging and affirming them as though they have been caught up in a Utopian state where man and plant understand each other. It is therefore not a wonder when God said let there be and there was. For you see, all creation is tuned to hear the voice of its creator. The prerogative as to whether to obey the voice or not however lies with only one animal.
Back to the subject of thinking and reason. Animals and men alike do think though there has been questions surrounding the applicability of that statement to all men. Thinking simply put, is the ability of a brain to follow through a process from one point to the next logical point. The ability to follow it through to a conclusion, especially a logical and relevant one is a debate for another day.
Thinking however cannot be dealt with without paying attention to a second person called instinct. Instinct is your first reaction in response to a situation. Instinct is interesting because it is not premeditated. No one has to have a plan for instinct. It just happens. The driving force of instinct is survival and self preservation. Like running away from danger or coiling up into a defensive position when anticipating an attack. Instinct pays no attention to thought, it shows no respect to time. Both animals and human beings are instinctive. Animals operate via instinct, usually uncontrolled instinct most of the time and some men fall under suspicion of being in this category too. The difference being that men can suppress their instincts through training over time while animals don't seem to be able to possess such willpower. They are at times able to override instinct and replace it with thought. This control is known as REASON.
Reason is the ability to govern both instinct and thought. The ability to choose which path to follow when looking for the most sensible logical conclusion. Reason is God's gift to man that has enabled man to dominate the planet for millenniums now. I say God's gift because speed lies at the centre of survival. Reason takes away whatever window of time that was opened by the arms of instinct. It is counter-survival. Anything counter survival will lead to only two outcomes: life or death. You can die from not taking advantage of the small window of opportunity or you can live by ignoring the window and building your door. Anyone who has attempted to make passage through a window will assure you that the door is always a more comfortable route. It may take a longer time to create it but once done, you will not desire to use the window again.
Reason has capacitated man with one important strength that lies at the centre of humankind: the need to live, not just survive. Living is an option, survival is a need. There is so much more to life than struggling to remain atop the food chain. Evolution and natural selection has tuned our minds to respond to instinct, it could never teach reason. It could teach thought but not critical analysis. It could teach survival but never living. Living is propelled by purpose, survival is propelled by death. The need to avoid death is the driving force of survival and human beings were made for more than that. Human beings were created to be more than creatures at the top of the food chain.
When do we stop evolving and start living?

Reincarnation

Lately, I have been doing an in depth philosophical study on great musicians and why they are considered as greats. My area of study has been largely centered on musicians from the latter half of the 20th century since music progressed through several phases in a speed that hadn't been experienced before. I have ignored the 21st century because the last two decades haven't really offered us anything new musically speaking. I am a musician from the 21st century so do not conclude I am hating for the sake of being a critic. Even the Rolling Stones top 100 musicians of all times chart seems to agree with me.

Some of the most fascinating musicians from that era in my opinion included James Brown, Ray Charles and Bob Marley but in regards to this particular time, James and Bob. They were very sharp musicians who gave the world new music. Bob introduced reggae to the world, James was the godfather of funk and rap (which led to hip hop) and Ray gave us rhythm and blues. However, above and beyond that, Marley and James Brown preached a universal message. (Stevie Wonder also comes in here). All these musicians did sing about love, which is the most resounding theme in music, but they did sing about something even greater, and that is socioeconomic injustice. Bob sang about freeing Africa and mental slavery. James Brown addressed black freedom in the USA. And it was evident from their music and live performances that they were very passionate about the message they preached. They knew what they wanted to say and knew that the world must listen to what they had to say whether they liked it or not.

In Kenya today, we classify music into two: Gospel and secular music. I believe it is the same for a large part of the world. Normally, Gospel music is sung in reference to an Almighty God while secular music is in some ways anti-God in its thematic expressions. These may take the form of gloating and sexual innuendos that usually include fornication and vocal porno to some degree. Some sing about love but not in a manner you would gladly play as a church presentation or in the presence of a spiritual leader. The previously mentioned characters would fall into the secular music category without a doubt.

However, there is the theme of socioeconomic justice that is not so popular in mainstream music circles. Those who have made it part of their musical philosophy; their life philosophy have made a great contribution to the world. Once a musician touches on this theme, the person transcends above the limits of categorized music and becomes something more than a musician. The person becomes a political ruler in the gates. The person becomes an ambassador for justice. S/he no longer flies on the same altitude as the rest. For justice isn't the property of religion. It is part of a human being. If you do not believe it is part of a human being, then you must believe empathy is part of the human being. Empathy simply put,  is the cog upon which the wheels of justice rotate on. It is part and parcel of man's humanity.

The musicians above, though secular, managed to transcend above the Gospel and secular limitations and set a bar above that which was already in play. That is why they were truly great. They carried powerful political messages that people could relate to. That is indeed greatness for they addressed that which was beyond their own self centered needs and little personal agendas. I pray at some point, there may be a reincarnation of such selflessness in the near future.

Architects of beauty

Beauty is probably one of the most misused abstract words of this century. Probably because beautiful means something different to everyone. Like the way a truck may appear beautiful to one due but ugly to another girl. The compass opposite of the word also happens to be one of the most misused words of this century. People sometimes just do not know what consists as ugly. Anything goes so long as the point in hand is driven across.

However, the greatest injustice I have seen in relation to the above two words has been the coarse use of the words around ladies and especially by ladies themselves. People once again lack respect for the difference between beautiful and attractive and in the same breathe, lack respect for the difference between ugly and unattractive. Most attractive girls have been termed at first glance as being beautiful but turn out to be as hideous as the devil himself. On the other hand, unattractive girls by societal standards have been termed as ugly with little regard for the beautiful condition of their hearts. It baffles me at times the manner in which people use the words ugly and beautiful in such a superficial manner, thereby denying the words the weight they deserve. I am sure if the words could speak for themselves (it is an ironic statement already), they would take a century to vent out their disappointment with the human being’s inability to rightly use the previously mentioned words.

However, the greatest injustice I have seen in the use of these words is when a woman calls herself ugly because of what she saw in the mirror that morning. It is disappointing to see women beat themselves down and call themselves ugly. No, actually it is despicable. It is horrifying for a beautiful woman to call herself ugly based on physical features whose optical value diminishes with age. Strangely enough, I have never heard a man call himself ugly yet some women allow the very men who label themselves as ugly to slap a label on the woman’s forehead terming her as ugly.

I was watching the opening episode of Slim Possible season five and it was sad that a majority of the women present wanted to lose weight because it defined their net outlook. I do understand physical beauty is important to a woman but it is far from the importance of the woman. Strangely enough, I have never heard a man call himself ugly yet some women allow the very men who label themselves as ugly to slap a label on the woman’s forehead terming her as ugly.

Women must understand the world can define what is unattractive or attractive and try to forcefully indoctrinate the ideas down a woman’s throat but they must understand that they wield a greater power than that which the world wields. The decision to be ugly or not to be ugly; to be beautiful or not to be solely lies within the boundaries of the person’s mind. In other words, you are ugly if you want to be and you are beautiful if you want to be. That decision solely lies with you my dear sister, not with the television, your favourite fashion magazine or the clique of hot girls in school.

Let me take it even a step further and say that you are as beautiful as you want to be and you are as ugly as the limits of your mind can set. God gave us a beautiful gift and that gift is this, whereas you may lack the power to predetermine the extent of your physique, you have unlimited creativity and power to create your own version of beautiful. You are as beautiful as you can imagine and vice versa. No one can make that decision for you except yourself. God has given you the power to be the architect of your own beauty. The tools are at hand but are you willing to design that beautiful creature the way you want it to look like or are you going to buy another copy from the hypermarket

Poetic Crusade

What does it mean to be a lazy thinker?
What does it mean to be a tolerant thinker?

Is it when I set aside my convictions,
Or when I set aside my religious dogma?

When I elevate my law degree,
Or theories from Karl Marx and John Stuart Mills??

Tell me what does it mean not to be a lazy thinker.

I was told stating my stand based on what my Bible has convinced me to be true is being lazy.
I was told that I must argue intellectually without bringing in my beliefs.
I was told having a personal opinion based on my Bible is lazy thinking.

At least that is what they made me understand.
That the active thinker has no religious convictions.

That I am a lazy thinker and that the non-religious thinker is an active thinker.

But I have news for you.
I believe that the lazy thinker is the person convinced personal convictions based on faith have no place in the society.

The lazy thinker is too lazy to figure out how faith affects every facet of society.

The lazy thinker thinks that the best way to think is without conviction.

Yet a man without conviction is a spineless being. He has nothing to live for, no purpose.

The lazy thinker is mad when a Christian declares his faith and criticizes it as intolerence;
While yet celebrating an atheist when he declares his lack of any religious conviction and labels it as tolerant, an active thinker.

As if the two men have done two different acts.

As if the two bleed differently.

It is lazy to think without foundational conviction,
As if you are a dead leaf to be blown around by every wind of philosophy and doctrine.

Tell me, what does it mean to be a lazy thinker??

Miserable sacrifice

"When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?”  -Victoria Osteen

Before I start, let me introduce myself by saying I am a person called by God into music ministry and I am not ashamed of saying so. That is all you need to know for the purposes of this blog.

So who are the Osteens?? They probably need no introduction to a majority of Christians but to those who do not know, they are the most controversial preachers of our generation and they lead one of the biggest congregations in the USA. They do preach what I may describe as a self centered Gospel that really dwells a lot on me, myself and I, which is half the Gospel if you ask me. I do not listen a lot to them and I rarely talk about them because it would be wrong to make a conclusive judgement based on hearsay and stuff I do not have direct evidence of.

Anyway, back to the statement. It was probably, the most controversial statement made this August and the YouTube comments show why. This is because it touches on a sensitive area and that is worship. Worship is as close to God as any man can get, and I am not speaking just about musical or artistic worship. This is because you worship what you most closely relate to. If it is money, that is it. If it is fame, so it will be and if it is God, so shall it be. And for it to be worship, it has to involve some level of sacrifice meaning you have to give up something about yourself, no matter how small. Thus comes in the aspect of sacrifice.

Worship also in another funky way is the evidence of one's love and admiration for the object of worship. The love part may not necessarily apply for all deities but for the Lord, it does because love is His very essence and nature. You cannot simply worship God without loving God.

So far, out of the many elements surrounding worship I have decided to pick these two. And the third element that we often love to overlook and that is Joy. Joy is one of the least expounded on topics when it comes to worship because church today has taught us there is no joy in sacrifice. It always has to be painful and therefore, any feelings of joy should not be present.
Put in another way, if we derive joy from offering our sacrifices, then it has not cost us enough. The deeper the pain, the greater the sacrifice. And from the pain, we gain a sense of self righteousness which again is totally not the goal of worship.

David in psalms 122 says, I was glad when they said unto me, let us go up to the house of the Lord. They joy was there before the sacrifice came. Let me put it this way, his righteousness preceded his sacrifice. And what I am about to say next will cause me some trouble.
God is the object of worship but man is at the center of it. People believe worship starts with sacrifice but it actually starts with man's delight in God. God is not interested in the depth of the sacrifice if the Lord isn't the delight of the man offering it. Our own joy therefore comes into scrutiny here. God is not a sadist who lives off the praises of man. That isn't him. A sacrifice offered up with melancholy is in no way God's idea of worship. And this is not to say that deep sacrifice is bad. I am just saying if at the end of the day after offering up worship or a sacrifice and all that is left in your heart is anything other than joy; if it is just pain and sorrow, you need to check yourself again.

Most Christians misunderstand joy. Joy is a fruit of the spirit, not a reward for anything we have done. The fruit of the spirit is something that all Christians need to exercise for we all have the Holy spirit as a result of accepting salvation. If joy and delight are not the center of our worship then we are doing it wrong.

The rest is for you to figure but that is the pinnacle of my thoughts regarding the statement by Victoria. I truly and shamelessly believe that man is also a priority in worship. Man's delight and joy are priorities in worship. Sacrifice in worship is important but that is not what God is essentially looking for. He wants to be the delight of our hearts. No delight, no joy, no worship.

War.

The topic of war is one of particular interest to me. It is a fascinating concept, and has been one of the more consistent marks of society. This fascination is not a result of sadism but of curiosity. The whole concept of life in itself is something astounding because life goes beyond mere existence. Something that the big bang cannot explain.

War from the earliest of ages has been associated with religion and mistakenly, more often than not, blamed on religion. Atheism has made us believe that religion is the main cause of unrest while if you study history carefully, this notion is disapproved.

Religion is one of the social bonds of society. Other social bonds include location, common ancestry, tribes and the like. These points of social organization give us common goals and functions and more importantly, common economic goals. Economy has been at the center of man's existence since God commanded man to bear fruit, multiply and fill the earth. Religion serves as a tool to push man towards this end. That is why we have all these religions in place today. Freemasonry being a good example of one. Our hip hop artists worshipping the devil being another and the most widespread being worship of self. For you see, religion is supposed to be a tool that enables one to tap into the spiritual realm of power and economics. If you do study prosperous men, they might have all not been Christians, but they were religious in one manner or the other.

If in doubt, check all the so called "religious conflicts". Each conflict had an economic angle to it. The conquest of Canaan being one of the examples in point. The current Middle East chaos with Israel, the Jewish Holocaust, the Vikings and others. All these conflicts were and are centered around economic power. What most people misunderstood is that religious conflicts are for the sole purpose of religious conversation. I find this notion funny because as much as you may put a knife to someone's throat and make him profess worship to your preferred deity, if it does not happen in his heart, then it is not real. This would in essence beat the whole purpose of a religious conquest.

Now, some people do argue that the crusades were religious. I do not know much about them but what I do know is that the church leadership then was not just a religious docket in the society but a political seat. Politics is designed to manage economies, not personal religious beliefs. You can fill in the blanks from there.

So what about an instruction to kill in war yet God says do not kill??
This is like the most tricky question to answer because the wisdom of God here surpasses mine but nonetheless, I shall elucidate further on my understanding of this.

Fatherhood is a strange spiritual concept. This is because you are the copy of your father since his blood flows in you, regardless of whether you know him or not. You most likely have character traits and habits from the man that you never knew where they came from whether or not you have met him. And it has nothing to do with genes. Some mothers try to hide their children away from their biological fathers in an effort to "protect" them from their father's flaws only to realise later on in life that their children do act like their fathers in spite of the conditioning they have attempted. This is because fatherhood is first spiritual then physical. To kill children and women in war is a statement of intent. That you do not intend at all for the legacy of the father to continue. That is why in war, it is not merely enough to kill the men because the children will grow up to be twice the man their fathers were. Twice the passion, twice the hatred and anger, twice the economic dominance if given the chance.
Another whole interesting diversion from this is rape in war. In wars, sometimes instead of killing we see rape. The children born out of rape in war grow up to be full of hate, malice and anger just like their fathers; the soldiers who raped their mothers. They grow up into bloodthirsty men with an unexplained insatiable hunger for conflict and war. It is not out of lack of a father while growing up, but actually as a direct result of the father's action leading to the child's conception. That is why much of Africa is still embroiled in conflict and war. With each new generation of children comes a young army with an unexplained thirst for war. People think it is the minerals in Congo that have led to such a long conflict but there is so much more to it. That is why death in war is such a necessary feature.

To the simpleton, it may look like I am making a justification for religious conflicts and even the Zionist movement. To the average, it may look like I am trying to reconcile conflicting Bible verses. To the more advanced mind, indulge me more. I am still learning anyway. Your pick....

To my atheist colleagues, I love the way you provoke me to thought. I hope I have in someway returned the favour.

This post is dedicated to a certain blogger whose name I have forgotten, but whose shallow sentiments about war and religion really annoyed me. In fact I shouldn't have justified her comments with a blog but there is no use in wasting sleep in order not to publish this.

Music and identity.

For the past year or so, I have had a lot of time on my hands and therefore been able to add a lot of knowledge to what our education system had already offered me.  A prime time to review my goals and ambitions in life and more importantly, my identity. One of the fascinating things about me is that I am a cool guy and a musician but apart from that, an African. At this point, I wish to stress how important it is for me to be an African. I believe that I have better opportunities than any other race (not that I have anything against my international friends), but I just believe so. Primarily because Africa is at a period of self definition. The past fifty years have been spent trying to become someone else other than African and that is the tragedy of our continent. In this tragedy, two observations have been made:

1. Black Africans are not totally proud of being African.
2. White Africans are more proud of being African compared to black Africans.

What does that have to do with anything???

Well, it is common but uncommon knowledge that you cannot be anything else apart from yourself, a concept few human beings seem to grasp. We see it in our dressing, speech, value systems and everything else that touches on our identity. Most musicians are also plagued with this crisis. Looking to every corner of the world for our musical identity except inwards.
I however, do not mean that we are not allowed to admire and be inspired by Switchfoot and Lecrae, there is no crime in that. I just want to suggest the idea that Africans have something to offer from within. It's like inviting someone over for dinner then buying take-away food for the occasion. It beats the purpose of the invite.

A good friend of mine and pastor once told me that Africa is the only region yet to offer up its own sacrifices to God. She had a point there since the rest of the world has given of itself and its potential except for Africa. I figured our identity crisis has a role in this. Same thing musically and economically. So what is it that we have to offer or what have people offered musically as an example?

I used to look at this issue from a perspective of genre, but upon further deduction, I realised a genre is a carrier of a MESSAGE, not the message itself. The message may have several thematic expressions but the message is usually one resounding message. A good example would be reggae. There are many different themes people sing about in this genre; love, peace, emancipation and all that but it carries one message and that is the message of freedom. It is funny because the birth of reggae coincided with the independence of Jamaica. Reggae therefore became a symbol of independence. However, most Jamaicans still sing of coming freedom for they are legally free but still mentally enslaved. Thus preventing them from celebrating freedom.
Black music is another weird one. Full of emotive energy and screams. If you listen to James Brown, he says the screaming is a scream borne out of pain and oppression of the black people in America. Black music as it originally came from the church represented hope for a better day. It's not a vocal technique they purposely pursued, but rather chose to freely express themselves the best way they knew how to. The message from black music is that of hope.

I could go on and on but the rest is upto the inquisitive mind to investigate for oneself.

However, the more fundamental question here is what story does Africa have to tell the world??? I unfortunately do not yet have the answer though it lies somewhere resident within my identity. It lies within us all.

An African movie writer once described Africans as natural storytellers. Every night after supper, African families used to conglomerate around a fire for stories. This culture did not belong to one community only but to the continent as a whole. It probably explains why songs like Malaika did well and other great songs. Most are just simple stories, nothing extraordinary. But told by extraordinary beautiful fellows because it is part of who they are. Just a thought.

Final story.
One of my favourite bands, delirious, once wrote a song titled, "majesty" co-written by Martin Smith and Stu G. Both are English men. That song was their most popular song and many churches still do it. If you listen to the lyrics, you can understand the sense of awe associated with monarchs. Combine the recognition of the English monarchical system and the the gospel and you get a powerful song like that. I am not proposing this as the ultimate formula for songwriting but I hope it summarises this post.

Pride and atheism

The nature of man when presented with the idea of God is to come up with another alternative. That being the basic flaw of man and even of Lucifer himself. Pride.

The foundation above statement is drawn out of a C.S. Lewis teaching, not entirely my original work. However, the rest of this shall be my own work, so not worry, I will not be regurgitating other people's ideas.

The first sin committed wasn't that of rebellion to God's word but of pride. Adam did not sin when he ate the forbidden fruit but when he decided to take on another alternative other than God. That other alternative being his human logic and intuition. Pride!!! Pride in himself, that he could come up with a better alternative than that which God had offered him. And since then, that has been the fundamental flaw of man. The attempt to attribute everything to himself and his ability to create, explain or sustain. The flaw that made man imagine himself to be a god, though not fully omnipotent, a god nonetheless. I could speak about it in depth, for I as a human, have been constantly fighting this on a daily basis. From the moment I wake up and separate me time and God time, trying to own the time given to me by God and calling it my own. Then allocating to him a portion of that time as if it were mine in the first place and all I am trying to do, is do God a favour and remain in his good books because I have bought it with my own property. Pride!!!

What I'm I trying to say? All I am saying is that the carnal nature of man does not allow him to give full glory or recognition to any other being than himself. Man is inwardly predisposed to glorifying and worshipping himself first. Then when he has had enough of that, to probably share what is left over with other people or beings (which I suppose in this case is close to zero due to man's selfishness). Man has never been at one time been more humble than proud on his own volition. He has only been able to do so when something greater than him changes that. He has only been able to give greater reverence to that only which is greater than him upon meeting that greatness. Humility has never been man's strength.
Therefore I would like to propose the following two scenarios for people who challenge the notion that religious piousness is man's creation.

A baby once born is born faithless and has no spirit capable of communing with God. The parents then choose to bring him up as a Christian and inculcate in him a false notion that God exists and that he created us and we should worship him. This coming out of a point that all men are born faithless but due to their unlimited imagination, fear of the unknown coupled with such a great degree of humility causes them to attribute all that they know and do not know to a supreme being. They extrapolate evidence from their surrounding that such a being can exist. Or.....

Man is born with a spirit that inwardly recognises that there is a God and they need to revere this being because He is greater than all men. However, due to the intrinsic flaw of man, pride, he tries to come up with other alternatives and so resorts to the scapegoats of logic and science. They fit in perfectly into the picture since both rely on the human mind, man can use the two to exalt himself. After much reasoning and thought, he concludes that religion is a creation of men birthed out of fear and ignorance. Since the atheist by now has transcended that level of ignorance and.achieved a higher level of self-consciousness, and has become fearless and.somewhat self-sustaining, he concludes that there is no such thing as God.

An atheist once called my argument simple and naive and for the purposes of the following section, I will validate his opinion.

I could only come up with the above two alternatives since life is primarily composed of two choices. And so follows the subsequent questions.

1. Which element best depicts man's character: humility or pride? Are men creatures clothed with pride or are they creatures clothed with white stainless garments of humility?

2. Which is easier for man to do? To beat his own will and in great humility, declare there is a being greater than him who could conceive such a glorious universe or; to try in his pride to rob God of the glory due to him by attributing the myth of creation to science and logic?

Call me naive but I think it is a bit unreasonable and utterly stupid to imagine man in all his pride and glory to willingly declare that he is so humble, humble enough to ascribe the pride and glory he has so long held onto, to an imaginary being. Man is the most imaginary of all creatures, but the least humble of them all. And if an atheist argues that religion is the apex of man's imagination, he must be ready to prove that humility is the greatest virtue in all men.

To believe that men are more humble than proud sounds very naive to me. Even I believe it is impossible as a man, as a Christian, that I am able to attain humility by my  own strength. I need a good deal of the Holy Ghost and the cross for that, and I believe that is the same case as with all Christians, even the holiest of them all.

I stand to be corrected but I think it is possible for man to creatively come up with the notion of deity. However, it is impossible for man in his pride to worship such a being unless there is enough evidence to compel man to humble himself.

To reconcile imagination and humility to the extent of coming up with God and surrendering wholly to him must be the most self-defeating thing man in his state of pride can do.
To come up with the above scenario and validate it is to me, the most naive thing an atheist can do.

Faith and doubt

"In order for a man to test his faith, he must open all possible avenues for doubt" Lelli Mandela.

As human beings we are all aware that the strength of an object or person can only be tested when the object is stretched to its limits. We understand that in every area of our lives, especially school and work where our endurance and patience is tested. Sometimes, even in relationships and courtships leading to marriage agree our love and long-bearing is tested. We understand that when it comes to dealing with children when they push us to our limits. Our devotion to God in our prayer and fasting. In all these areas, we do understand this principle. All these except one: our Faith.

Faith in this sense not being the ability to believe in God's working power, but faith: our salvation; Christianity. Faith for the purposes of this article being a religion.
Do you believe everything the good Lord says in the big black book because it is and has always been there, or do you believe because you are convicted by the truth. The big black book says God will spit out the lukewarm person. The person who has no conviction of where he/she stands. Going by that scripture, it would seem that the Lord would possibly be displeased by our pious following of His word in the event of failure to be hot or cold about it. God in this case would seem to be more tolerant towards the person who wrongly but convictedly interprets God's word as compared to the person who has no opinion about his word, only religious fanaticism towards it. Such a person would on the face of it look like a windy person, able to be tossed here ans there by every wind of doctrine.

Doubt, more often than not, tests our Faith and resolve in the Lord. It reveals our minds and hearts concerning God's words in our lives. Without arousing doubt or suspicion, we can rarely get to know if we really believe God's word and are convicted if its righteousness or we just follow it because it is the letter. Without testing our faith, we can really never determine if we are religious fanatics or true disciples.
A person without true conviction of his faith can never be fit to defend the gospel when called to rise to the occasion. Many Christians are guilty of this since we are too cowardly to ask ourselves the questions atheists ask themselves. If I am not the first person to be convicted by the truth, how else I'm I supposed to disembody the seed of doubt in another unbelieving human being?

The case here isn't being made for the evangelising Christian but for the Christian willing to do a personal audit of their faith. A person ready to test the extent of his faith. That is why I admire Peter when he walked on water. He made the conditions perfect for the testing of his faith. He decided to weigh the Lord's word against doubt and ended walking on water. Many people remember Peter for drowning but I remember him for being mad.enough to test his faith. No wonder God could trust that that he would be the rock upon which the church would be built.

What most people do not realize is that Peter did not walk on water because he was a fanatic but because he had an untethered conviction. How many of us can boldly say I will take up all my fears and doubts and weigh them against my faith in God? How many can say I an ready to test my heart and weigh my beliefs? How many are ready to take that leap from religious fanatics to convicted disciples?