Roycemadeit's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Roycemadeit's Profile › Roycemadeit's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 33 pages)

Family › Marriage: Role Vs Sacrifice by Roycemadeit(op): 7:56pm On May 09

People often describe marriage as sacrifice, but I think that idea is deeply misunderstood. Most of what people call sacrifice in marriage is not sacrifice at all. It is responsibility functioning within a role that was voluntarily accepted.

I recently saw a video of a man talking about how unmarried people are often the loudest voices giving advice about marriage. He used an example of a husband saying his wife washes his clothes while washing hers, and the comment section immediately turned into a debate. Some people argued that a grown man should wash his own clothes. Others insisted marriage should always be “50/50.” The man responded by saying modern people no longer understand marriage because marriage requires sacrifice.

But I disagree with that framing.

I do not think waking up early for your family, helping your partner, cooking, cleaning, providing financially, or supporting a household should automatically be described as sacrifice. Those things are responsibilities attached to a role people willingly entered.

There is a difference between sacrifice and role acceptance.

If I decide to become a doctor, sleepless nights become part of the profession. If I become a father, responsibility naturally follows. We do not constantly describe these things as sacrifice because they are understood to be part of the role itself.

Marriage should be understood the same way.

For example, a woman who is single may wake up at nine in the morning because her schedule allows it. But after marriage, she may begin waking up earlier because the structure of her life has changed. Her husband may be leaving for work early, children may eventually arrive, and the demands of the household become different.

Modern thinking immediately labels this sacrifice.
But is it really sacrifice?

Or is it simply adaptation to a role she willingly accepted?
If I drive an automatic car, I use one foot most of the time. I would not say I am sacrificing my other leg. I am simply functioning within the system I chose to operate in.
Marriage works similarly.

The real problem is that many people enter marriage physically but never psychologically. Their bodies enter the institution, but their minds remain attached to singlehood. So every adjustment feels like a personal loss. Every responsibility feels unfair. People begin saying things like: “I sacrificed my freedom.” “I sacrificed my peace.” “I sacrificed my sleep.”

Eventually marriage becomes emotional accounting instead of partnership.

This is one of the reasons many modern relationships struggle. People want the emotional benefits of marriage without accepting the structural changes that naturally come with it. They want companionship without obligation, commitment without inconvenience, and stability without responsibility.

But every meaningful role in life changes the person inside it.

A parent cannot remain completely self centered. A leader cannot avoid responsibility. A committed partner cannot behave as though they are still entirely independent.

That transformation is not oppression. It is the consequence of entering a shared structure.

True sacrifice does exist in marriage, but it should not be confused with ordinary responsibility. Caring for a sick spouse for years through pain and uncertainty may involve sacrifice. Enduring extreme hardship together may involve sacrifice. Those situations go beyond normal role performance.

But ordinary duties within marriage are not automatically sacrifice. They are participation.

The danger of constantly describing marriage as sacrifice is that people begin to see responsibility itself as suffering. And once that mindset develops, resentment slowly enters the relationship because every act becomes something to be counted and repaid.

The healthiest marriages are probably built by people who understand that marriage is not about preserving singlehood under one roof. It is about consciously accepting a new role and the responsibilities attached to it.

That is not sacrifice.

That is commitment.

1 Like

Literature › Re: Hot Soles by Roycemadeit(op): 6:49pm On Apr 25

This was the second week since I met Titi, and in that short time we had seen each other four times on different days. Four meetings, four separate disasters to my peace of mind. Every outing had been memorable, the kind of reckless adventure that leaves a man lying awake at night wondering when exactly he transformed from an ordinary hustler into a hopeless romantic fool. Love, lust, ambition, delusion, they often wear the same perfume.

Today made it the third day in a row we were seeing each other that week. I could hardly ask for official leave just to spend time with the hottest and richest girl I had ever spoken to, a woman who, in my increasingly biased opinion, was very likely destined to be mine. So I did what underpaid workers across the land have done since civilization began. I called in sick on Wednesday. Nearly everyone in our office did it sooner or later, except a few noble creatures like Serah, who always told the truth and accepted consequences like some kind of administrative martyr.

Besides, Titi represented opportunity. She was beauty, excitement, escape, and upward mobility wrapped in one expensive package. In my mind she had become like a difficult five-unit course I absolutely had to pass. Not just pass. Excel in. So far, my performance had been promising, but today was examination day. I intended to scatter that course orally, practically, and theoretically. By the time I was done, she would suspect my pen never ran dry, my plantain was machine-made, and my hips operated on industrial fuel.

“Bros, go now.”

The voice yanked me back to reality. I turned and saw the man behind me in the ATM queue pointing impatiently at the machine. I had been so lost in fantasy that I forgot I was standing at the front of a line full of citizens already irritated by life. A dangerous place to daydream in Lagos.

I hurried through my transaction, boarded a taxi, and about forty minutes later I arrived at her estate in Jakande Phase 1.

The place looked like the sort of compound money builds when it wants privacy. A giant gated duplex stood before me, with high fences dressed in roughly chiseled stone. Even the gate looked expensive and unfriendly. I straightened my shirt, checked my breath, and dialed her number again for what had to be the fifteenth time.

No answer.

Then the gate opened slightly.

I smiled to myself. I expected Titi to rush out and fling herself at me the way she had done the last two times we met, once at an elegant lounge in Opebi and another in GRA, each embrace so sudden and forceful I nearly lost balance and ancestry. In preparation, I widened my stance like a man bracing for affection.

Instead, a small boy, no older than nine, peeped through the opening.

Before I could speak, a man’s harsh voice barked from inside. The boy disappeared instantly and the gate slammed shut.

I frowned and reached for my phone to call again.

It slipped from my hand.

At least, that was what I thought.

What really happened was that something, or someone, hit me from behind with such force that I was launched forward into the fence. My shoulder smashed against stone. Pain burst through my arm. Before I could turn, another blow sent me crashing to the ground.

Then they descended.

Fists. Boots. Something hard and heavy.

The world became noise and pain.

“Lord Je... Jaso... yee!”

My mouth was trying to pray, but grammar had abandoned me.

GHBOOW!

A strike landed across my ribs.

“God please... please...”

GHAN! GBISHH!

A kick folded into my stomach and stole the air from my lungs.

GBAW!

My face scraped the ground.

“...Piss oh please...”

I meant peace, but under enough beating even vocabulary develops a concussion.

GBIIIQSHHH!

“As I ebnetr wrre haaa!”

I was attempting repentance now, but the prayer came out like a broken keyboard. Half words, wrong tenses, punctuation without purpose. If heaven graded clarity, I was doomed.

At some point the blows paused. I lay curled on the ground, trembling, trying to gather the pieces of myself.

In my head I prayed properly.

Father, forgive me. Is this how I will end? You know I try to live right. But today... today I came here for fornication. Lord Jesus, you know my thoughts. Forgive me. I am a sinner. In fact... I came from fornication.

Then laughter exploded around me.

Cruel, delighted laughter.

One of them mocked in a dramatic voice, “I came from fornication!”

Only then did I realize I had spoken the prayer aloud.

Wonderful. Not only was I being beaten to death, I was also providing entertainment.

I tried to lift my head, tried to see who they were, tried to scream, but something heavy crashed against my skull.

The earth tilted.

The voices stretched far away.

And I fell into a darkness so complete it felt like I had stepped off the world itself.

Literature › Re: Hot Soles by Roycemadeit(op): 4:21pm On Apr 25

We were driving toward the terminal where I usually boarded the intra-state mass transit bus, the BRT. She was on her way home from visiting her cousins but decided to stop by first, as if derailing my entire evening schedule was a casual hobby. Only a few hours earlier she had called to ask where the Tiron Movies office was located, saying she might come by the next day. I never imagined she meant that same day. Some people say “I might come around” the way politicians say “we’re working on it.” Titi, apparently, moved with military efficiency.

She had not mentioned that her father was in the army until I asked why a man built like a reinforced gate was shadowing her every movement. With kidnappings becoming the national pastime, her father had assigned Musa, also known as Mosko, as her driver and bodyguard. The man looked less like staff and more like a one-man emergency response unit. Her father was the notorious Lieutenant Colonel Maduekwe, the officer credited with helping crush insurgencies in the North some ten years earlier. Though he had since risen to the rank of Major General, many still called him Mad Lt. Col. It was not the kind of nickname one repeated in his presence unless one was tired of owning teeth. I knew this because the day I stood before him, my tongue resigned from duty and fled without notice.

Still, the evening itself had been glorious. The kind of evening that tricks a young man into believing destiny has finally remembered his address. I sat there building castles in my head, painting futures with reckless optimism. Me and Titi. Better clothes. Better life. Maybe even a car whose doors opened without prayer and shoulder force. Human beings can manufacture fantasy from the smallest attention. A smile, a touch, a woman with perfume and confidence, and suddenly you’re drafting wedding invitations in your skull.

When I boarded the BRT, I noticed several passengers glancing at me sideways with expressions that mixed curiosity, amusement, and the silent gossip Nigerians can perform without speaking. I ignored them. In my mind the explanation was obvious: I smelled of expensive perfume, the kind of scent that announced itself three seconds before the wearer arrived. Let them stare. For one evening at least, I was not the struggling telesales boy chasing reluctant subscribers. I was a man returning from somewhere important.

By the time I got to my street, the area was bright with electric light. A miracle in itself. What a day. I walked to Anuru’s kiosk, the small provision store that had saved me from hunger more times than dignity would allow, and asked for bread and powdered chocolate. I had no strength left to cook. Romance may lift the spirit, but it does nothing for tired legs.

Anuru handed me the items, then paused. He leaned forward and stared at my face with the grave concentration of a doctor discovering a new disease.

This was becoming suspicious.

“What is it?” I asked. “Wetin dey my face?”
“Oga…” he said slowly, squinting for accuracy. “E be like… say na woman mouth.”
“What?”

I demanded a mirror. He passed me one from under the counter, scratched but serviceable. I looked.
There, blazing on my cheek like evidence in a criminal trial, was the full red imprint of Titi’s lips.

For a moment I just stood there, bread in one hand, chocolate in the other, staring at my own reflection like a man betrayed by his skin. Then memory rushed back. She had kissed me before I jumped out in a hurry to catch the BRT, and in all my confusion and excitement, I had forgotten to wipe it off.

Which meant I had ridden a crowded public bus across Lagos wearing a woman’s lipstick mark like a campaign poster.

Anuru laughed so hard he had to hold the shelf.

I snatched the mirror away, wiped my face with the back of my hand, and walked home with whatever remained of my pride. Still, beneath the embarrassment, I was smiling.

Some humiliations are worth it.

Politics › Re: Gowon Speaks On Civil War, Says He Didn't Commit Any Crime by Roycemadeit(m): 8:05am On Apr 22

What kind of conscience celebrates the suffering of fellow human beings simply because they were born into a different tribe? No one chose the ethnicity into which they arrived. No one earned their bloodline before birth. Yet some speak with pride about massacres, starvation, and marginalization as though cruelty becomes noble when the victims are neighbors. That is moral collapse dressed as patriotism.

A failed coup by a number of men does not justify condemning millions who never planned it, never ordered it, and never held power. Collective punishment is the language of barbarism. To blame an entire people for the acts of a few is not justice.

The deepest insult is this: many who excuse such violence still bow mentally to the same foreign powers that looted Africa, enslaved Africans, and carved nations for their convenience. They reserve mercy for distant oppressors and venom for those beside them.

1 Like

Politics › Re: Gowon Speaks On Civil War, Says He Didn't Commit Any Crime by Roycemadeit(m): 7:56am On Apr 22

orisa37:
God will bless Gowon and Obasanjo for eradicating BIAFRA from the NIGERIA CONSTITUTION IN A NO VICTOR NO VANQUISH 36 CONSTITUTIONAL STATES.

P.S:

Biafra was not one of Nigeria’s constitutional states that was later removed from the constitution. It was a secessionist republic formed during the civil war. Also, Nigeria did not start with 36 states. The 36-state structure came decades later through several rounds of state creation. If we want to discuss history seriously, we should use facts.

Invoking God to praise the destruction of a people’s struggle does not make the act righteous. History should be examined with honesty, not wrapped in sentimental slogans like “no victor, no vanquished” while millions suffered death, displacement, and starvation during the Nigerian Civil War.

If Biafra was removed from constitutional language or political reality, that was the result of human power, war, and political decisions, not divine endorsement. Leaders must be judged by the lives affected by their actions, not by convenient praise after the fact. Real unity cannot be built on silence, denial, or selective memory.

Politics › Re: Gowon Speaks On Civil War, Says He Didn't Commit Any Crime by Roycemadeit(m): 4:21pm On Apr 21

orisa37:
GOD PUNISH WHO?

God won't punish anyone.

1 Like 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: The Silence Of God: The Loudness Of Guns by Roycemadeit(op): 10:47am On Apr 20

Dtruthspeaker:
Answer, not cure and your Google still says that "Global maternal mortality remains critically high, with an estimated 260,000 women dying from pregnancy or childbirth-related causes in 2023—"...

Plus, your answer is only accessible by the rich and yet they still die .

https://www.nairaland.com/1931154/wasiu-ayindes-dancer-kemi-omotoyinbo#26821647

https://www.nairaland.com/8195590/sharon-okpamen-dies-after-childbirth#131688663

Plus, painful delivery is not the only cus that God gave

Now you have moved away from topic of why God is silent to "salvation of people born in non Christian countries. If you are interested in that been addressed by several threads here.

Funny 🤣

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is The Effect Of Not Knowing Good And Evil? by Roycemadeit(m): 8:21am On Apr 20

Dtruthspeaker:
Labour pains isn't the only curse, in that Pronouncement.

Snakes never eat sand, neither is every man tilling the ground.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Silence Of God: The Loudness Of Guns by Roycemadeit(op): 8:20am On Apr 20

Dtruthspeaker:
Remember, it is written that every one will give account of their works and you heard that after all these God's Court would be raised to pass Judgement upon men. So just is, is covered

Then, when a house is marked for demolition it makes no sense fixing anything in it. So, you just have to wait for God or you can try and do what you can to stop it but even you yourself know that it is futile

Once again. I apologize.

And I would always apologize.

Let me use an analogy. According to the book, God caused a woman to suffer pain in childbirth. Humanity answered with anesthesia, medicine, and safer delivery. Instead of kneeling before suffering because a text described it, we studied the problem, understood the cause, and created relief. That is the purpose of our intelligence: to confront reality, improve reality, and reduce needless suffering.

So when I mention places like Turkey, once deeply Christian, or Syria, with ancient Christian roots, and someone replies, “The Bible foretold it,” I hear ...................... disguised as insight. If suffering, decline, persecution, or civilizational change are simply to be accepted because they were predicted, then thought itself becomes useless.

And there is a deeper problem. Turkey was Islamized centuries ago. Generations have been born into a different faith through history, not personal conspiracy. If salvation depends on believing in Jesus in the approved way, then countless people are swept toward hell largely by birthplace and inheritance.

One could then assume that this is divine justice, or a system arranged so that not everyone was ever meant to make heaven!!!

Christianity Etc › Re: The Silence Of God: The Loudness Of Guns by Roycemadeit(op): 7:52am On Apr 20

Dtruthspeaker:
Did you not hear that God already told us all these was going to happen? So we are not bothered.

Damn. I apologize!

Since every suffering, killing, and kidnapping is excused because God supposedly said it beforehand, then compassion has no meaning, injustice becomes holy, and the dead are told they deserve it. As a humanist, that is the death of conscience dressed as faith.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is The Effect Of Not Knowing Good And Evil? by Roycemadeit(m): 7:46am On Apr 20

Dtruthspeaker:
Good thing you say "to you" in show of yourself delu as people complaining that life is hard and the abundance of maternity hospitals and the fact that women are since been lower and less than men prove you are talking rubbish.

The idea that labor pain is some divine curse starts falling apart once you look at the body itself. Childbirth pain can already be explained by the baby’s large head, the narrow human pelvis, contractions, stretching, pressure, and all the physical strain involved, so there is no need to drag heaven into what anatomy already explains. Human biology created the difficulty, not a punishment story. What makes it even harder to defend is that modern science has gone far in reducing that pain through epidurals, surgery, better maternal care, and medical knowledge. If something was meant to stand forever as a curse, it is strange that human understanding keeps finding ways to weaken it. To me, that says knowledge has done more against suffering than fear ever did.

Christianity Etc › The Silence Of God: The Loudness Of Guns by Roycemadeit(op): 6:56am On Apr 19

Context video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oATV6W1fsfY?si=bodFMK7uw88Vt3pe

This Sunday, most churches in southern Nigeria will be full. Songs will rise. Hands will lift. People will say they are entering the presence of God. But some truths do not wait politely outside the sanctuary.

The same argument many Christians once used against our African deities now returns to their own doorstep.

They asked: if your gods are real, why did they not stop the slave ships? Why did they not scatter the colonizers? Why did they not strike down those who chained bodies, burned villages, stole lands, and renamed worlds?

Now the same question can be asked of Christianity.

If the Christian God is the ruler of heaven and earth, why does He not stop those who massacre Christians, bomb churches, abduct worshippers, and erase ancient Christian communities? Why must frightened people defend an all-powerful God with hashtags, politics, and pleas?

The blade they sharpened for others has found its way back to their own hands.

My point is not to defend African religion or attack Christianity as a sport. My point is consistency.

If silence during African suffering was proof that African deities were false, then what is divine silence during Christian suffering proof of now?

If conquered people were told their gods were weak because invaders won, then what does it mean when believers today are conquered, displaced, and killed while praying to the God said to rule all things?

This is where many people like Baba Isaac Omolehin are blind to the harder possibility: religions are human systems built around meaning, fear, power, identity, memory, and hope. Perhaps men crown their tribal god as universal God, then call history itself proof.

The God of the Bible emerges from a particular people, a particular land, a particular story, a particular tradition. Adam and Eve, Eden, Israel, Sinai, the prophets, these are not generic human memories shared by all civilizations from the beginning. They come through Hebrew tradition, through the Torah and the Tanakh, later through Christianity's expansion.

That matters.

Because if many peoples never knew that story until conquest, trade, mission, or empire carried it to them, then we should be honest enough to admit that what many call “universal truth” also has a historical route, a political route, and a violent route.

How do you justify a conqueror killing your ancestors, humiliating your culture, then handing you his God and calling it salvation? Would it not have been better handing you guns and ammunition instead?

How do you separate revelation from domination?

How do you know whether conversion came from truth, survival, fear, schooling, pressure, hunger, or force?

These are not childish questions.

And if there is a supreme reality beyond all names, why assume it is fully captured inside one religion, one book, one tribe’s language for the sacred?

_{If something greater exists, it would not belong to any institution at all. Perhaps that is why sun worship appears across civilizations, because every human being can see and depend on the sun. Even Christianity carries this openly: worship on Sunday, the very day of the sun; East star, often linked in popular discussion to older fertility and spring symbols; halos placed behind holy figures like solar discs; and Jesus rising into the sky as a visible image of ascension and light. Many repeat the symbols without noticing what they are participating in.}

We are quick to label mystery, slower to prove anything. The moment certainty outruns evidence, belief has begun. That is not automatically evil. But it should be admitted honestly.

So when people like Baba Isaac Omolehin say “defend the church,” I hear something else: defend inheritance, defend identity, defend community, defend memory, defend the story that made life feel ordered.

Family › Re: If You Have A Beautiful Marriage Please Tell Us The Secret by Roycemadeit(m): 12:03pm On Apr 15

What sustains marriage is character: honesty, communication, integrity, empathy, and accountability.

Being called God-fearing does not guarantee faithfulness, just as lacking that label does not guarantee failure. When temptations, weaknesses, or struggles begin, they should be spoken about openly, not buried in silence.

Secrets grow in darkness, and what is hidden often returns later as damage. The same is true with money, one of the great pressures in marriage. Financial hardship can strain a home, but secrecy, dishonesty, and lack of teamwork destroy it faster.

A good marriage survives when two people choose truth, humility, and mutual care again and again.

Christianity Etc › Re: Artemis II Pilot, Victor Glover, Preaches From Space (Video) by Roycemadeit(m): 8:47pm On Apr 12

To say “I do not know” is not foolishness, it is honesty. A man should not be called a fool for refusing to accept what has not been made clear to him.

When a man says that only a fool claims there is no God, I pause, not because I have an answer, but because I have a question.

What do you mean by God?

Because in the Book of Psalms, the word is not this loose term we use today, it is Elohim, a name shaped by a people and their culture, understanding, something rooted, not wandering and brought by strangers.

There are those who say Aka-Ose, there are those who say Eledumare, and they are not calling him God. Yet the word God crossed the seas, it arrived with brutality, it was taught, enforced, repeated.

What did David mean by God?

It is easy to look at the sky, at the order of things, and say this must be God, but even in the account of Book of Genesis, questions remain. Days are counted before the sun appears, darkness is present, yet its origin is not spoken of, and still we are told not to question but we ought to assume that the creator who paused the sun, didn't know it was the earth that rotated? even the earth is said to have four corners and has a foundation.The flat earthers also use the bible to disprove a spherical planet...

To say “I do not know” is not foolishness, it is honesty. A man should not be called a fool for refusing to accept what has not been made clear to him.

One man believes from what he has felt, another doubts from what he has not experienced, yet the one who believes through his personal experience is quick to judge.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 9:15pm On Mar 28

Umbrateeth04

You say women haven’t challenged systems effectively, but history says otherwise.

Rights, laws, education, participation, none of that appeared because patriarchy “allowed” it.

Two examples: _{Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti
She led protests against colonial taxation and fought for women’s rights and helped women in gaining political recognition. She even made a king abdicate his throne

Rosa Parks protested and refused to give up her seat to a white man. Thus, helped ignite the wider Civil Rights Movement. And it lead to enforcement of Civil Rights Laws.}

It happened because pressure made the system adjust.
You’re not describing nature. You’re describing power, then calling it inevitable so it doesn’t have to be questioned.

And that last part about “if you can’t beat them, join them” isn’t wisdom. It’s adaptation, yes, but also resignation. Humans don’t just adapt, they also change what they inherit.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 9:01pm On Mar 28

Umbrateeth04:
you are all over the place quite unfixed and unsettled...I get you quite alright but you are not put together to solve the puzzles.

Nature is indifferent..Nature doesn’t assign blame, fairness, or moral meaning...Nature doesn’t “care” whether this is cruel—it only works.In nature, existence itself dictates behavior, not intention.

Same way patriarchy doesn't justify its action it acts on instinct

Now you are diving into philosophy and sociology,,even most branch of philosophy and sociology uphold a different worldview ftom yours...Nature operates by its own laws
Suffering is part of the structure of existence
Wisdom is learning to accept what you cannot control...Nature is not moral or immoral—it’s beyond good and evil
The lion killing the antelope is not “wrong”—it just is
From this view:
Your discomfort comes from human values, not from nature itself...in sociology this is how nature operates...purpose and validation is still within the framework of the animal kingdom
Traits emerge because they increase reproductive success, not because they are “fair” or “good.”
The lion’s hunting and the antelope’s fleeing are co-evolutionary arms races.
If antelopes didn’t run → population collapse and starvation.
If lions couldn’t catch prey → predators die, ecosystem destabilizes.
Predation, escape, fear, and death all maintain ecological balance.

The analogy is valid women are not antelope in the sense but symbolises an antelope persona.

What is the antelope persona...Instinct-driven
Its primary motivation: survival
Reacts immediately to danger → flight, alertness, vigilance
Doesn’t reflect philosophically or morally; it lives in the present
2. Cautious and alert
Highly aware of surroundings
Sensitive to sounds, scents, and movement
Hesitant to take risks → constantly scanning for predators
3. Social and cooperative
Often part of a herd → safety in numbers
Relies on group dynamics to detect danger
Shows a kind of collective intelligence, even without conscious planning
4. Vulnerable yet resilient
Physically weaker than predators → vulnerable
Mentally and physically adapted to outwit danger
Life is a continuous struggle, but it’s built to endure
5. Symbolic persona
If the antelope were a literary or philosophical character, it would represent:
Innocence and vulnerability
Persistence and resilience
The tension between fear and courage
A living symbol of the struggle inherent in life

when have women challenged system and it became effective or rewriting structures without the permission of patriarchy?..you are very funny

I still repeat that whatever lasts long is natural and therefore justified” as I typed earlier injustice if done for a good cause is clearly justified...example slave trade(nature's long lived permanent mark that left a good impact)...From an egalitarian lens → it feels harsh, unfair.
From nature’s lens → it’s just how life maintains itself...like a snake shedding it skin and springing up a new

I disagree with you...there is an addage that goes like this if you can't beat them then you join them...if you can't suppress nature then you adapt with nature...like I typed earlier wisdom is learning to accept what you cannot control

Nature being indifferent means it doesn’t justify anything. It doesn’t approve patriarchy, slavery, or dominance. It simply allows whatever can happen to happen. The moment you start saying something is “justified” because it exists, you’ve added human judgment back into a system you claim has none.

You’re mixing two different things. In nature, lions and antelopes don’t build systems, write rules, or enforce hierarchies beyond survival. Humans do.

Patriarchy is not instinct like hunger, it’s a structured system maintained by culture, belief, and enforcement. Calling that “instinct” is just removing responsibility from it.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 8:37am On Mar 27

Mutant001:
what is existence without purpose?
Your create meaning to life to benefit from it and that alone can be justified.

A lion hunts for antelope to survive that alone is justified...in the animal kingdom there is circle of life and that circle of life is their system..one feeds on the other to exist and that alone is valid and has meaning...the same applies to human...patriarchy needs to dominate and control matriarchy to survive that's what creates distinction and differences..for patriarchy to have strived so long without objection, question, evaluation and changes then that means thats the guidlines nature mapped out for humans to follow...do you see a lion going to am..bush an antelope on a full stomach?..it only hunts when it's hungry...you see nature knows what it is doing...so any form of oppression has its validity if you do it for the right course

The antelope symbolises the weak effeminate nature of women...the antelope doesnt fight it only resist by escaping, enduring and adapting...the symbolism doesn't form a ruthless revolt...but a means of escaping or adapting to the harsh nature of patriarchy...it doesn't break anything cos even if the antelope resist by only escaping it will however be hunted down by a predator...its only means of survival is to come into the cognizance and awareness that it was created by nature to be feast upon by predators and by adaptability it should find awareness to escape whenever it sights a lion from afar...that alone doesn't stop the lion from being a predator or the antelope from being a prey...women are passive object in the food chain cos they don't create their own rules..they follow the rules mapped out by patriarchy...that alone is another form of control...they think organize and reshape structures only if the patriarchy approves of it..you have forgotten its a mans world...my analogy have never collapsed cos am presenting you reality the way it is..you on the otherhand have conflicting and unsettled analogy..you are just all over the place and unfixed ...biology have everything to do with social structures all thanks to nature for making the women weak and fragile

Me and you are not on the same page on this..let's get it straight...so you are saying a lion continuously feasting on an antelope doesnt make it nature?
That a lion since time immemorial keeps the antelope on his food menu and acting upon it without any strong force stopping it...simply means is how nature wanted it to be...so therefore that patriarchy had rained since the dawn of time without any opposition or striking force stopping it..so therefore is how nature wanted it to be...you are not getting it...slave trade was passive at a point in time that was why it took place in the first place...we call it "nature's long lived permanent marks"..then again why it was abolished was because slavery has already served its purpose and therefore it was no longer needed cos its job is complete.so what are you insinuating?..by my logic anything that dominates long and is still in existence is the truth..slave trade is a truth even though it outlived its lifespan..it was allowed by nature for a significant course and will forever be a permanent mark both in nature and history...for every injustice, empire and outdated system to stay this long simply means nature wanted it to be like that..nature removes whatever it wants to remove and keep whatever it wants to keep

Infact there are two sides of the same coin..one needs the other to feel nature..it is the nature of a lion to hunt antelope for survival and that alone makes him to feel like a lion...what is a predator without a prey?...and in that route has the lion found its destiny..so therefore does the patriarchy has to lead matriarchy to feel empowered and in control to find fulfillment and meaning to its existence.

Frankly, I don't know why it's pretty difficult to comprehend my argument. I'll try to augment it for better clarity.

You all keep calling everything “nature” as if that automatically makes it right. It doesn’t.

A lion doesn’t justify its actions, it acts on instinct.

Humans do something different, we build systems, assign roles, and then try to defend them. That’s not nature, that’s choice layered over biology. The moment you start talking about “purpose” and “validation,” you’ve already left the animal kingdom.

The analogy fails because women are not antelopes.

Antelopes don’t organize, challenge systems, or rewrite structures. Humans do. Women have resisted, shaped societies, and changed laws repeatedly. Ignoring that doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just makes it selective.

And this idea that “whatever lasts long is natural and therefore justified” collapses under its own weight. As I wrote earlier, by that logic, every injustice becomes truth simply because it endured.

You may not be reasoning here but accepting power without questioning it.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 12:04am On Mar 26

Umbrateeth04:
existence and justification are two sides of the same coin...human life requires a purpose or rational validation to be valid whereas a lion has found its purpose for hunting and killing antelopes and creating bloodlines.to the lion life itself has found validity in that course.both have found a different purpose to validate their existence..so what are you insinuating?

You are misinterpreting the whole concept...how you neglect the antelope persona is a cause for concern...you and the sexist are one and the same with a different agenda...if you claim one hunts to survive without taking into account the feeling of the antelope(the oppressed) then It also depicts that a man controlls a woman to create a survival hierarchy...a subject needs an object to survive while the object is at the mercy of the subject

Funny how you think this way...power lasting a long time is the nature...when a power is held by patriarchy and their is no disputable challenger or strong governing force against it then it becomes the nature...where you expecting matriarchs to dethrone it?. Oh don't be delusional...the same way a lion has been hunting antelope for survival since the beginning of time without any resistance or any force pulling it down in its mission is the same way patriarchy will forever control matriarchy
Slavery was a rule set up by the higher patriarchs but was the same time abolished by the same patriarchs ...cos lower patriarchs(the black men) were at the receiving end of the harsh treatment..they didn't abolish it because of women they abolished it cos the black men were at the receiving end of it...

Existence and justification are not the same thing. They only look like it when you benefit from the system in question.

A lion doesn’t justify anything. It doesn’t sit and construct meaning. It acts. Humans are different precisely because we question, evaluate, and change what exists. If survival alone justified behavior, then every form of oppression in history would be valid by default.

You keep bringing in the antelope, but the antelope resists. It runs, it fights, it adapts. That alone breaks your idea that the “object” exists to be controlled. In human society, women are not passive objects in a food chain. They think, resist, organize, and reshape systems. That’s why your analogy keeps collapsing. You’re forcing biology onto social structures.

And power lasting long doesn’t make it nature, it just means it faced limited resistance or had the tools to suppress it. _{P.S. Slave resistance wasn’t passive, it actively pushed the abolition of the slave trade.} By your logic, anything that dominates long enough becomes truth. That would make every empire, every injustice, every outdated system permanently correct.

Are you describing nature or are you describing dominance and calling it destiny?

Christianity Etc › Re: JW Adjustment On Blood Transfusion: Doctrinal Changes & Effects by Roycemadeit(m): 8:07am On Mar 25

MaxInDHouse:
Atheists just love deceiving themselves walahi talahi.

You openly confessed i silenced you only to come back now claiming it's not what you mean.

Oya prove it you said you don't have the time but you have all the time to continue arguing aimlessly with people who don't know how to silence you!🙂

Very funny fellow, you just did like y'all do with your bible, cut one part out then try to tell paint a picture that might make some sense... Why didn't you post the whole thing I wrote? Up until now you haven't responded...

Yes, you have silenced me, with facts, of course. You can define knowingness; now try defining belief and faith, and show me how they connect to reality...

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 8:02am On Mar 25

Umbrateeth04:
its quite funny how you tossed the antelope aside as if it was an inconsequential fraction and centered more on the lion persona that's the same way sexism has closed their minds to the voice of women on prejudice and centered more on exalting themselves in the bandwagon of patriarchy..you said is in the nature of a lion to hunt for antelope...your points solidifies and strengthen the patriarchal system but you didn't notice that you inadvertently shot yourself in the leg. A sexist man can also say it is in his nature to dominate and rule over a woman... so therefore that makes him a man...after all his religious indoctrination permits that

The men didn't tell the lies..what their senses can see, observe and perceive became their reality

It was wisdom for them to decipher the contrast...they found weakness in the feminine figure..and were so smart enough to sabotage and exploit it...its another kind of wisdom that stood the test of time...and that was enough reason for it to be their truth

I disagree,,, you control what you have power over...and the controlled cannot rebel cos they lack the strength, willpower, fortitude and defence to resist oppression...chaos can never be in the picture cause the controlled was compelled by their controller to endure in silence...

Guy don't compare immortality with mortals...spirits are equal but when it takes on a human form then equality seizes to exist

Patriarchy is the nature.. for it to have stayed so long without confrontation or dethronement..then that's the model nature will follow till the end of time.

I object..men will keep on controlling like you previously typed in quote "that lion feeds on antelope it is a natural instinct"...so therefore it is the natural instinct of a man to assert his hunger for control on a woman..after all women will always resist but will eventually end up being controlled..just like the antelope will resist but later ends up being devored by the lion..it is the sad reality of life...both sides can never mirror the same struggle for dominance...it is not a conflict of two rivals of equal strength..this is a conflict of the powered and the powerless..one mirrors being dominated and the other mirrors being the dominator..this is progress to exalt patriarchy and belittle matriarchy..there was never a symmetry in the first place life itself is not balance the male figure is not identically proportional to the feminine figure so equality will never exist..so your point on this symmetry is null and void..there was never a contest in the first place majority are drooling over men for poverty alleviation scheme, to avoid loneliness and societial stigmatisation...the only contest is in the minority where we have Pack load of feminist and radical misandrist...their numbers are insignificant to start a revolt...yes respect has always been conditional...everybody wants what they want for their own personal gain..and lastly a beggar has no choice...if you can't beat them you join them to exalt patriarchy to high heavens..that's another form of weakness

You’re confusing what exists with what is justified.

A lion hunts out of natural instinct. A man dominating a woman is not instinct, it’s conditioning reinforced by culture, religion, and history. One is survival. The other is a system.

Power lasting a long time doesn’t make it natural, it just means it wasn’t challenged effectively. Slavery lasted too. That didn’t make it truth.

Christianity Etc › Re: JW Adjustment On Blood Transfusion: Doctrinal Changes & Effects by Roycemadeit(m): 8:37pm On Mar 24

MaxInDHouse:
Wisdom is defined as an element of personal character that enables one to distinguish the wise from the unwise.

So leave what i hold onto and present the benefits of your faithlessness and i will present the benefits of my faithfulness!🙂

Who get that time?
Don’t come and act like you “convinced” someone who deals in facts. Some of us actually know the history behind these holy books, including the borrowings and edits that built them.
You didn’t proof nothing but psychosis and brainwashing.

Christianity Etc › Re: JW Adjustment On Blood Transfusion: Doctrinal Changes & Effects by Roycemadeit(m): 8:22pm On Mar 24

MaxInDHouse:
I don't beg you to believe rather i want you to prove that you are wiser than a person having faith in God.
So leave whatever we have read in the books and let's use logic to prove who is wiser!🙂

Faith fills the gaps where facts don’t exist.

You’re asking that I prove to be wiser, but wisdom doesn’t rely on belief. It relies on what can be proven. A wise person doesn’t need faith, they prefer evidence.

Reality doesn’t care what you believe. It just is.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 8:17pm On Mar 24

Umbrateeth04:
sexist men don't share the same world view as yours...to sexist men penetration means dominance and power while reception means submissiveness and weakness..they don't uphold contrast as complimenting one another..they view it as a perfect definition of a master and slave.

how many matriarch do you know as opposed to patriarch?
How many Goddesses do you know as opposed to Gods?

Check every religion around you their God's always embody a male persona
The world ain't balanced..its All about the survival of the fittest...in which the strongest always triumph...while the weak will suffer shame, ridicule, Pains, anguish, agony and death...its a very sad reality

You see a strong successful independent financially stable woman who is blatantly shamed for not having a man tied to her...just one thing small minds falsely deems as flaws and error tragically undermines her success and achievement...we are in an era where a womans worth is tied to her husband while a spinster successful accomplished financially stable well to do woman is shamed...and the same is quite opposite of the male counterpart[/b]pathetic...the double standard is nauseating

Don't get it twisted I am with you on this however we cannot overlook the very system which brought about this dysfunctions and Stereotypes.

I don't blame women who wants to stay single and child free all the days of their lives as they have experienced patriarchy and have had an ugly bitter taste of it..[b]they are of the notion that if they are to create a world they are not safe in..then they better not create it at all...[b]do you think those women will be happy birthing their oppressors?

Come to think of it do you think animals don't have feelings?
We have encountered animals that display emotional pains and grief in the slaughter house...take for instance i have witnessed a horse shedding tears about knowing its inevitable fate of being slaughtered...animals have feelings they can distinguish pain from comfort..you will know this when you are a conc animal lover

That's why in my previous quote I used the analogy of a lion and an antelope.
It is in the nature of a lion to devour an antelope while it is the nature of an antelope not to fight back but to endure and escape hence from this allegory prejudice, sexism and misogyny was born, fed; groomed, nurtured and raised to lay its ugly head and deadly claws to traumatise, maim and kill those it perceive as weak, defenseless and powerless...
Pv
i dont blame men but i blame their creators for making them more powerful and ruthless

I get what you are saying. But, it's a little all over the place. We can't equate men to lions and women to antelopes, if we are gonna do that let's all be lions. That'l lions feed on antelope is a natural instinct.

Their creators didn't make anyone more special than the other. It is the men who told this lies that also told that their creator is male.

The world is held together by force, illusion, and inherited arrogance. The idea that men should rule because they are stronger is not wisdom, it is primitive thinking that survived long enough to disguise itself as truth.

Strength has never proven intelligence, only the ability to control, and control without restraint decays into chaos.

Before dominance hardened into systems, there were societies that understood balance. Not perfection, but cooperation. In places like Ancient Egypt, power was not imagined as a lone authority. Even in their divine order, figures like Isis stood alongside, not beneath.

Patriarchy is not nature, it is repetition turned into belief, a system that transformed difference into hierarchy.

Now the consequences unfold. Men cling to control, women resist subjugation, and both sides mirror the same struggle for dominance. This is not progress, it is conflict in symmetry. Relationships become contests, respect becomes conditional, and cooperation is mistaken for weakness.

Christianity Etc › Re: JW Adjustment On Blood Transfusion: Doctrinal Changes & Effects by Roycemadeit(m): 8:00pm On Mar 24

MaxInDHouse:
If you can't prove anything other than arguing on what is written in books i think you and i aren't on the same page.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses i can sit an atheist who doesn't believe in any God or books and convince him or her why i believe in the Bible God so i won't start quoting the book but reason logically with him.

See examples of what i'm saying:

These people are from different schools of thought ranging from atheists to agnostics, traditionalists and Churchians.

So if all you can do is rely solely on what is written in that book without being able to reason logically to convince others why they should believe the Bible it's clear you and i aren't on the same page!🙂

@MaxInDHouse grin

Sarcasm keeps escaping you. I presented logic and evidence; you replied with mythology. When I said you’d “silenced me with facts,” it was dismissal, not praise. You mistook mockery for validation and wore it as intellect.

You confuse belief with knowledge and confidence with proof. When evidence appears, you retreat into faith and call it depth.

I don’t operate in belief. Belief begins where evidence ends. Intelligence needs neither faith nor applause.

P.S: Claiming superior understanding of the Bible just because your sect appeared recently is absurd. People studied, debated, and lived the Scriptures long before you existed. Obviously, God loved the world so much that He waited over a thousand years to reveal the “truth,” leaving everyone else misled or deceived until you finally arrived.

Use the added file below, instead of that sarcastic quotes.. ehn?

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 8:26am On Mar 21

Dtruthspeaker:
The 2 popular Natashas have already shown you that the muscles men carry isn't the only dominating power.

Strength is dominance and power is power that is the way God and Nature has set it to be.

Man created God. God didn't create nature

You don't know this one too!

If we keep explaining the present without interrogating its foundations, then we’re not thinking, we’re just maintaining. And a world that is constantly maintained without being reimagined will always reproduce the same problems.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 7:23am On Mar 20

We have been raised to believe that one gender is meant to dominate the other, but that idea was shaped by patriarchal culture, not nature.

Men and women are designed to complement each other, not compete for power. Even in our biology, there is a natural correspondence, the male as injector and the female as receiver, fitting together with purpose rather than conflict.

No human thrives in isolation, so the idea of superiority defeats the purpose of being human in the first place. Different cultures have shown that there is no single way to structure society. Some are matriarchal and emphasize balance, while others create systems where both masculine and feminine roles are valued equally.

Our problem is that we have stopped questioning systems and started treating them as absolute truth, and that has led us down a path of dysfunction.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 1:36pm On Mar 19

Umbrateeth04:
mehn the world is not balanced..patriarchy has ruined everything

The notion of patriarchy is that the whole world, system,science,technology ,art, education cultures,and laws were built, created and invented by men and so therefore women should be at the receiving end of prejudice.

But one could deduce that nature was infact precise and straightforward on the creation story to the point I was left speechless to always follow the stereotypical bandwagon of men being the superior beings as they were created far more sophisticated and stronger than women due to their bone mass, body structures and strength..and here comes the woman weak, feeble, soft and fragile..one was created to look like gods while the other was created for just the mere pleasure and satisfaction of the other...pitiable sod

I have always had your kind of eccentric view on life to the extent I began to question life, nature and its existence...we will rub heads together to unravel what lies within nature...as I don't really conform to the conventional established norms laid down by patriarchy and their prejudice against women...follow me as we delve into this haunting journey of unravelling mysteries

I have had some sexist men ask me this question that left me in suspense for quite a while now..It would sound so hilarious and demeaning at the same time...but I would be hoping you find an answer to this question

1a.if equality really exist and everything happens to exist in a delicate balance why are men created more stronger than females?
1b.why are women created with holes in between their legs and men created with poles in between their legs?

2a if nature wanted equaity dont you think nature in its essence would have created women the same strength as men?
2b.why should there be penetration during copulation?..is their no other way for reproduction that doesn't require sex?...as this act of top and bottom signifier will always ridicule the existence of women...as women are the bottom..and men the top...the receiver of dick is the bottom and while the tops are the penetrators..Sexist men have always used sex to dehumanise women..making them being an object of sexualization and caricature...we are in an era were superiority is determined by what sits in between your legs...sighs

One will even question God...I feel like humanity can't come out of this prejudice...it will take a new world order for everything to fall into the right proportion and balance..it sealed and unfathomable.... at some point I am beginning to think that the devil(the imperfect god) created humanity for his own entertainment with the devil having his favourites..the gnostic view is quite glaring...imperfect creation...which will definitely come to an apocalypse..its inevitable..the suffering...cruelty of animals,,, superiority will always exist in an imperfect world..even in the animal kingdom some animals are more stronger and exert dominance than the other the lion was created by the devil to devour the antelope..can you see the favouritism and prejudice in the lion and antelope analogy?..one is created to devour the other ...while the other is created to endure and escape with less strength.. with this analogy one can deduce that life itself is unfair both to women and the antelope...
i am forced to believe in the ideology of those who seek for anti-natalism and a total human extinction

So what's your thoughts on my own perspectives?... and secondly i would love you do justice to the questions above...I am looking forward to your feedback

I find myself unsettled by the way difference is turned into hierarchy by society, that the structure of the body should determine worth, as though biology were a verdict rather than a condition. And then we go on to compare humans to the an in the bush, that only hunts to survive.

When I observe the contrast between man and woman, I do not see a ladder of superiority, but a tension of forms, each carrying its own burden, its own capacity. To say one is stronger and therefore greater feels like a refusal to look deeper, a preference for what is visible over what is endured, no thanks to patriarchal belief systems that enthrone males and has no account for the feminine.

What we often call “natural” is already an interpretation. We look at function and impose meaning on it. Strength becomes dominance, penetration becomes power, reception becomes submission. Yet these are not truths given by nature; they are conclusions drawn by us. Nature presents differences, but it does not explain them. It is we who construct the story, and in doing so, we often reveal more of our fears and desires than any universal order, as we see cultures that have Goddesses.

The interpretations, we learned has built systems that bind us. We rank one another based on what none of us chose; our bodies, our form, our place at birth. In doing so, we quietly abandon the responsibility of seeing each other as fully human. A logical person, who seeks for better should question this indoctrination, If there is anything worth holding onto, it is the idea that difference does not diminish, and that no structure built on it should decide the value of a life.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 5:34pm On Mar 18

Dtruthspeaker:
You are the one making me repeat all i have said since you keep veering off point running and raising more off points.

Definitely, if you say "natural dropped from the sky" then you are right for that is the idiomatic expression that Natural is like rain and that Natural came to meet us or we came to meet it

And you have proven it that even today you have still refused to go and to give your dignity to an olosho or rapist or thief just like the rest of the world despite all you propose.

And on boxes, it is clear that everything is in a box. You are in the box of man, which is why we will find you in the boxes talking about getting a job and acquiring a house, erectile function and prostrate are things. No one will see you in cervical cancer and menstruation and womanstop (menopause) boxes. So you are decivjng yorsef when you think you are not in a box.

And on submission, authority and worth, it is you who does not appreciate that authority and worth go together. And that doing what everyone cannot do increases your worth and makes you superior to others. That is why a pilot is paid more than the driver of ABC transport, even when both of them are technically drivers moving goods and passengers with vehicles. Technically, every human can drive a car but not every human can drive a plane. So the difference is clear.

And that is why a pilot is more respected than and more dignified than the ordinary fisherman in his canoe in river state and even you, would readily and happily welcome with open arms the pilot to marry your daughter over the canoeing fisherman.

So, you are still wrong and making an unreasonable proposition

My Right!

We do not share the same worldview. Mine is reasoned and deliberate.

Man is not defined solely by profession, wealth, or social ranking. A fisherman is no less worthy of respect, of marriage, or of dignity than a pilot or CEO. Reducing human worth to material or functional achievement reflects not reality but the corrosive influence of poverty, fear, and social boxes. Love, humanity, and dignity cannot thrive in such a framework, no matter how many comparisons or examples you raise.

You treat people as lesser because of what they do or how society labels them, but that perspective makes the world more toxic.

Refusing to recognize the humanity in an Olosho, a thief, or anyone deemed dishonorable creates cycles of dehumanization. People denied respect and recognition will inevitably find ways to reclaim what was taken from them, often at the expense of the society that constrained them. Ignoring this reality demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of better human systems and the consequences of inherited prejudice.

Don't put me in the same box as yourself. I can marry an Olosho and my daughter could marry a fisherman.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 9:46pm On Mar 17

Dtruthspeaker:
You are still talking off point in trying to find where you suppose my view comes from as if your own view is not coming from somewhere also thereby missing the issue of the discussion not being about where our views come from but about the Truth that is seen naturally. which you yourself have seen and are partaking in.

And the fact is that we come in boxes: a man must think like a man and a woman must think like a woman. Do you not see all the the threads here are boxes? Car section box, politics section box, Romance section box etc.

So, like it or not this life is in boxes and things are fixed exactly how there is no way an olosho will be respected. Even you with all your claim for equality has not gone to give dignity to an olosho or rapist or a thief. And it is not man who set morality: no human went about telling people not to respect the olosho or the rapist or the thief,

And on the pilot superiority, the bottomline is that you see that your "antisubmission" statement was not correct as there is something called "authority" and that makes a person superior to his fellow man. And as companies and airlines have shown there is harmony and stability.

So, you are just trying to raise a tsunami in a plate.

Always talking about “natural truth” like it dropped from the sky and everyone just knows it grin

. All you’ve done is repeat what you’ve been led to believe and call it nature.

The fact that you put things inside boxes does not make those boxes fixed or meaningful in any absolute sense. Reality is more complex than painting everything white and black.

Then you jump from categories to conclusions, saying some people cannot be respected because of what they are or have done... Accountability is not the same as stripping someone of their humanity. The moment you decide who deserves dignity and who does not, you are no longer talking about justice, you are just defending a hierarchy that makes you comfortable. grin

And on authority, you’re still confusing role with worth.

Let me spell it out, not for you, since you seem more interested in reacting than understanding, but for anyone actually paying attention. Authority exists for function, not because one person is a superior human being. It is tied to responsibility and competence, not inherent value.
A pilot leads a flight because of skill and responsibility, not because he is more human than the passengers. That distinction is simple, yet you keep missing it. Authority organizes action; it does not elevate one person above another in dignity.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 4:41pm On Mar 16

Dtruthspeaker:
I got the point.

Your dodging and refusal to even be seen associated with an olosho already proves that even you know that it is nature that has set it that they do not deserve to be treated like human beings.

Your view comes from long-held rules and dogma, based on the idea that certain teachings decide human worth and behavior. This way of thinking turns complex human life into simple boxes and ignores choice, context, and responsibility. By assuming authority, morality, or value comes from fixed standards, you mix up social roles with real human dignity.

First, your argument confuses social function with human worth. A pilot may command a crew during a flight, just as a manager directs employees in a company. That authority exists because of responsibility and expertise, not because the pilot or manager is a superior human being.

Second, the claim that certain people should not be treated like human beings simply because they engage in activities you consider dishonorable collapses under scrutiny. If dishonor strips someone of their humanity, then the same judgment must be applied consistently. Yet, we have society that condemns the woman who sells intimacy while tolerating the men who buys it.

Third, reducing a person entirely to one label ignores the complexity of human life. No individual can be defined solely by a single action or profession.

Fourth, using “nature” to justify social exclusion misunderstands what nature actually is. Nature does not assign moral rankings to human beings. Those rankings are cultural inventions, shaped by power, fear, and tradition, it has nothing to do with natural.

Fifth, the idea that balance comes from domination misunderstands how stable societies actually function Domination produces obedience, but never harmony. Stability emerges when authority is tied to responsibility and when humanism remains universal rather than conditional.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Sin Innate In Us? by Roycemadeit(op): 7:12am On Mar 16

Dtruthspeaker:
So, are you saying that you would marry an olosho and treat her equally like a decent girl? Romance and family section has already answered you, so no need to lie.

And the bottomline is that as long as there is sin and dishonour there would always be a need to separate oneself from dishonourable people.

And if an employee does not submit to his master can there be balance?

As usual, you are missing the point again grin

. The question is not whether I would marry an olosho. The question is whether an olosho deserves to be treated as less of a human being. Those are two very different matters. A person’s circumstance does not erase their humanity. If you were the one in that position, would you enjoy being treated as something beneath dignity?

People are quick to condemn the fruit while refusing to examine the roots. Nobody wakes up one morning and simply decides to become an olosho without a chain of circumstances leading there. Poverty, coercion, desperation, and lack of opportunity all play their roles. Yet society prefers the easier task of pointing fingers at the individual rather than confronting the conditions that produced the outcome.

As for your argument about separation from “dishonourable people,” that reasoning is convenient but shallow. History shows that the same society that condemns the olosho is often the same society that creates the conditions that produce her. If we truly cared about honour, we would examine the system before condemning the individual.

And regarding your question about submission, balance does not come from blind submission to a master. Balance comes from understanding roles, responsibilities, and mutual dignity.

P.S. A system built entirely on domination will always produce resentment and imbalance.

Romance › Re: She Leaves, I Drink Hypo by Roycemadeit(op): 11:15pm On Mar 15

Talkisneeded:
I miss your writings bro

I would try to keep up with my third love, give her some more attention...
grin

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 33 pages)