Welcome TO Africa MY Father Land

What is marriage?
Marriage is a covenant,by which a man nd a woman establish btn themselves a partnership of their whole life, nd which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the of the spouses nd to the procreation nd upbringing of children,has,btn the baptised,been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament:firstly they didn't say is btn man to man or woman to woman,bt man nd woman.Why then,man to man,woman to woman marriage these day in our new churches in the world?Secondly of the whole life.Nt short-time or half month bt till dead do us apart.Lastly upbringing of children,now the qustion is can man to man marriage,give birth to any child?if i'm to ans dat the ans is no,or can woman to woman marrige bring forth children absolutly no.Why all this evils my friends?I need ans to clear my mind

In his encyclical Rerum Ecclesia(feb.28,1926),Pope Pius restated the principles delineated in Maximum Illud.He specifically emphasize the value of the native clergy in unstable situations in mission lands under colonial rule.Should the foreign missionaries be expelle,the local clergy would ensure the future of the church.He still stressed on the training of local clergy but also recommened the formation of new active and contemplative religious congregations and orders in mission lands,and an adequate formation of catechists so that they could adapt the teaching of christian doctrine to the intellectual level of their students.

once i have a sweetheart and now i have none.he's gone and left me empty.he's gone ane left me to sorrow and mourn.last night in sult slumber,i dreamed i did see my owe precious jewel sat sailling by me.
Once i have a sweetheart and now i have non.but when i awakened i found it not so,my eyes like some fountain with tears overflowed

the gospel has gone far and wide,yet no appreaciable change can be told off,and still it is preached on every mass media,this only raises one question,why?
One of the ways in which moral behaviour is learned is by religious affiliation.As long as this is not self reflecting in peaceful relations btw communities, states n countries,the role of religious institution in bridging the gap btw right n wrong is failing.this chronic failure is perhaps bcos there's 2much focus on the argument 4 which faction has the best set of explanation n deductive logic 4 any topic at all n putting great effort on conversion of new members rather than an emphasis on upholding spiritual vaules.even the christian community is grossly divided amongst itself, with microcosm defining its own teaching as the best there's.some choose 2 remain with the original orthodox style n others prefer the renaissance pentecostal method,n some others take bits n pieces frm the former n the later,combining methods n beliefs of whatever seems the best or is most important thing frm diffrent system(eclecticism).
And so,where does all this leave a neutral person seeking the face of God?where sect can win him over?such a person will be left at the mercy of the most attractive member conversion programme or perhaps joining the band wagon of the sect which perturbs him the most about going to church.one can be a catholic,but admires the sense of dressing corporate of the 'Jehovah witness',or like the contemporary style of praise songs by the pentecostals:these are his/her preferences ad we all have ours.
conclusion,if we believe in God,the father almighty n in his son Jesus Christ,then this should come frm deep conviction,in spite of our preferences or the way we choose 2 worship God.n since Jesus Christ died 4 all,each one should learn frm this by lovingly accepting one another as much as we can.let the Godliness we preach reflect itself by the life we lives,n not necessarily by our choice of religious affiliation.

lovin and hateful for something are almost thesame bcos,they said wen you love u luv with passion at thesame time wen hate u also hate with passion.so is this two are not two in one?What do u think