Roycemadeit's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Roycemadeit's Profile › Roycemadeit's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 33 pages)
It is fair for folks to date different people-not sleeping with them o. In this age, folks don't really date but play married and that is ridiculous🤣 |
Siblings tend to forgive each other repeatedly because they share similar experiences and cultural influences. Growing up in the same environment fosters an understanding that makes it easier to overlook faults and reconcile after disagreements. No matter how often they fight, they usually find a way to come back together. In contrast, a husband and wife come from different backgrounds, shaped by distinct upbringings and personal experiences. When they marry, they merge two different worlds, often leading to misunderstandings and conflicts. Unlike siblings, who naturally adapt to one another over time, spouses must make a conscious effort to understand and accept each other's differences. Without this effort, disagreements can escalate, sometimes leading to separation or divorce. Another key difference between siblings and spouses is the role of fidelity. Siblings do not engage in sexual relationships, so issues of faithfulness or betrayal never arise between them. However, in marriage, sexual fidelity is a central expectation, and one of the most common reasons marriages fall apart is infidelity. Many people enter marriage pretending to be someone they are not, suppressing their true nature to fit societal expectations. If a man or woman knows they enjoy multiple sexual partners, it is deceptive to enter a monogamous marriage while secretly desiring otherwise. Infidelity should not be seen as an inevitable part of marriage—it is a personal decision, not a condition imposed by the institution itself. If individuals were honest with themselves and their partners from the start, many marital conflicts could be avoided. A successful marriage depends on open communication, mutual respect, and a shared understanding of expectations, rather than simply conforming to societal norms. |
"The rules of the world are written by those who hold power. If we want change, we must stop praying for justice and start building the strength to create it. Power shapes reality; morality follows the strongest hand." |
"The idea that men are ‘designed’ to cheat while women are biologically monogamous is a patriarchal construct. Both men and women feel the same urges, but society has shaped the narrative to fit its own preferences, creating a system where hypocrisy and double standards become the norm." "Fidelity isn’t just about biology—it’s about choice. Whether in a marriage or any relationship, the decision to stay faithful stems from integrity, not someone else’s rules. Society may say one thing, but the true value of fidelity lies in the personal commitment made, free from imposed expectations." |
"Society asks us to tame sexual urges as if they’re wrong. But urges aren’t learned—they’re innate, like hunger or sleep. Suppressing them for 'morality' denies our humanity. Why live by rules that disregard the core of who we are? Life thrives in honesty, not in denial." |
"Need to launder 100M Naira? The church is perfect. No one questions tithes. Deposit millions every Sunday, fake a contract, and transfer to a 'business.' Pastor gets 10%, you keep the rest. Sin may not pay, but it launders well." – @roycemadeit |
I intend to share excerpts from my upcoming book. |
Did he slam the door, only to find himself crouching moments later, staring out through its keyhole? His breath hitched as his eye strained to see the world he'd just shut out. He wasn’t ignorant of what he had done—not in the slightest. The weight of it settled at the bottom of his bowels, heavy and unrelenting, as though his very core had been replaced with lead. As the adrenaline drained, a cruel slideshow began to play in his mind: the happiness he had cast aside, the smiles he would never see again, the warmth of accomplishments now turned to ashes, and the faces of family and friends that dissolved like mist when he reached for them. The images lashed at him, each one sharper than the last, until his thoughts boiled over, livid and chaotic. He had done everything exactly as planned—every step, every detail meticulously executed. How could he have known that after crossing that line, after seizing the one thing he thought would liberate him, he would find himself shackled by an agony far worse? That the line he crossed wasn’t a door, but a wall, locking him into a cage of his own making. Now, lying on the ground, his body writhing like an earthworm coated in salt, he could think of nothing but regret. Every fiber of him screamed for release—from the pain, from the realization, from himself. He wished, desperately and futilely, that he hadn’t done it. But wishes, he knew, were the cruelest jest of all. When he had it, it was nothing close to great. It was like a grimy, rough-cut cabochon, dull and seemingly worthless—a thing of no significant value to the untrained eye. He never held it with pride, nor treated it with care. Yet now, as it tumbled from his grasp, slipping irreversibly into the void, a sudden and unbearable clarity crashed upon him. His heart clenched as he winced, then yelped, his cries echoing into the void, desperate and raw. He begged for help—a help he knew, deep down, would never come. The weight of that knowledge bore down on him like a crushing tide, and he felt the bitter sting of regret sear through his soul. What he had dismissed, overlooked, and underestimated was now the singular loss he could not endure. Leaving a trail of blood seeping from his body, Jude's movements were slow and strained, his slithering crawl a desperate attempt to reach the door. The bathroom, once a place of solitude, now felt like a tomb closing in on him. Each inch closer to the door drained him further, his strength evaporating with every breath. The cold floor beneath him felt like ice, but he had no strength left to feel it fully. Twice, his shaking hands failed him when he tried to turn the doorknob. The effort was too much. The door, just a few inches away from his grasp, seemed like an unreachable promise of escape. The third attempt came, and with it, a painful realization—his body could no longer obey. His mind screamed for survival, but his limbs betrayed him. As the door finally creaked open, it was already too late. With a final, agonizing tremor, Jude felt himself falling, a sudden weightlessness taking over him. The world blurred, spinning away as consciousness slipped from his grasp. There was no sound, no moment of clarity, only the cruel sensation of free-fall before he slammed against the cold, unyielding floor. The world went black. |
This story is not rated (18+) All rights reserved:no part of this story may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without the prior approval of the author. roycemadeit@hotmail.com. |
Khayil: |
MindHacker9009:The church finds it challenging to truly advocate for the people because, at its core, it is a construct shaped by governing authorities. It operates in a way that often aligns with the interests of those in power rather than the interests of the people it claims to serve. Through the framework of sin and morality, the church imposes limitations on the human experience, subtly guiding and restricting individuals' choices and behaviors. This influence is not just about spiritual guidance; it becomes a means of social control, shaping what people perceive as acceptable or forbidden, often diverting them from questioning broader systems of power. In doing so, the church may inadvertently serve as an instrument for maintaining established order rather than liberating the human spirit. |
@gideonski The caption needs a clearer perspective. Instead of "what you don’t know about women," consider framing it as "what you don’t know about my neighbor," or even include her name to make it more personal. After all, this same neighbor could be the type to give freely, sometimes even twice as much, without expecting anything in return. It’s not fair to generalize about all women based on one experience. However, there's a principle worth noting here: if you give something away, give it without holding on to the idea of getting it back. Only give what you’re truly willing to let go of. Once it's given, think of it as gone, unless you’re genuinely open to that possibility. Life often works through exchanges, but expecting everyone to act as you would is unrealistic. In the end, you have the choice to either respond in your way or react based on others' actions. The decision remains yours. |
This one that it's posted under politics. Are you sure that you are not close to rivers State. Whether Na Wike and Sim be the neighbours ![]() |
Love, we’ve been told, is free of any transaction. The purest form, they say, doesn’t ask for anything in return. But let's be real—this is a lie we cling to like bad wallpaper. In practice, love demands, in subtle ways. It’s a barter system of affection, favors, sex, and emotional support. You like her because there’s something to gain—companionship, maybe, or the way she makes you feel better about yourself. She’s with you because, in her eyes, there’s something worth having too, whether she’ll admit it or not. And there’s nothing wrong with that—nothing wrong with two people joining forces for mutual benefit, perhaps even a shared life. But what’s wrong, what sticks like a thorn, is when she didn’t say it. She didn’t tell you, "Hey, there won’t be a second date." She didn’t tell you that you weren’t what she wanted. But imagine she had said those exact words. Would it sting less? Or would that brutal honesty just confirm the nagging fear you already had? |
jaephoenix:Move On. One should not convince you that you can't read. |
jaephoenix:If your eyes are closed, what is the essence of receiving directions? |
- _ [color=#D89000]The control that the early church sought to maintain over its followers was rooted in restricting access to its central text—the Bible. To prevent scrutiny and independent thought, only a select few were allowed to study it. For centuries, this strategy succeeded in keeping people from questioning the contradictions within their holy book. But over time, even among the clergy, individuals began to think critically about what they were reading. Those who dared question the doctrine were swiftly dealt with. Many were excommunicated or killed for their dissent.[/color] [color=#EF0299]One notable figure who broke away was Martin Luther, a priest who, disillusioned with the corruption of the Catholic Church, established the Lutheran Church. Similarly, the Anglican Church was formed under King Henry VIII, though his motivations were less about reform and more about power and control. Like the Roman Emperor Constantine before him, Henry saw the establishment of a state church as a means to solidify authority. By aligning with the clergy, he ensured that whatever pronouncements were made in the name of God were beyond question, reinforcing his political power through religious influence.[/color] [color=#0EF912]This same dynamic can be seen in modern-day Africa, where governments and religious leaders often work hand in hand. The people are taught not to question their leaders but to blame the devil, sin, or their own failings for the hardships they endure.[/color] [color=#EF3600]Meanwhile, religious leaders live in affluence, and their wealth is justified as "Kingdom blessings." This is eerily reminiscent of the tactics employed by the Roman Catholic Church throughout history, where religious authority was wielded to suppress dissent and enrich the clergy.[/color] [color=#EF0790]The church's power may have waned after losing several wars and failing to maintain its grip on Europe, but its influence did not disappear entirely. For centuries, it played a key role in shaping the political landscape, influencing the rise and fall of kings, and dictating the policies of nations. Even as its reputation suffered, the church continued to wield considerable power, leaving behind a trail of violence and oppression.[/color] [color=#F0B129]The full extent of the church’s atrocities is difficult to comprehend. Millions were killed, entire cultures and religions were wiped out, and temples were looted to satisfy the greed of those in power. This raises a crucial question: how could anyone believe that such an institution was established by God? If Christians truly think that God condoned the horrors committed by the church, then how can they reconcile this with the concept of a just and merciful deity? To continue believing without question is to deny one’s conscience.[/color] [color=#BBB665]Perhaps the answer lies in the nature of the God depicted in the Old Testament—a God who, like the church, was often brutal and unyielding. The Bible recounts countless stories of divine wrath, of entire nations being slaughtered, all in the name of preserving a chosen people. For centuries, religious differences have fueled wars, and billions have perished in the name of faith. How, then, can one believe that God established the church, knowing that those who compiled the Bible had their own agendas?[/color] The truth is that the Bible itself has been altered and manipulated over the centuries. Since the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, there have been numerous meetings where parts of the Bible were rewritten, added, or removed to fit the church’s objectives. The most recent significant revision occurred in the 1960s, yet the Bible is still presented as an unchanging, sacred text. But if the Bible has been continuously edited, how can anyone trust that it represents the word of God? The answer, it seems, lies in the motives of those who controlled its narrative—men who sought power, control, and the perpetuation of a system that served their interests, not divine truth. |
[color=#AE6600]In the Middle Ages, nurses and midwives—those who provided vital care to women in childbirth—were often branded as witches and met a gruesome fate at the stake. Their crime? Offering relief to women in labor, which was viewed as defying the will of God. According to Christian doctrine, as set forth in Genesis, the pain of childbirth was divine punishment for Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, any attempt to ease that pain was seen as a challenge to the natural order—a direct violation of God’s will.[/color] What is deeply disturbing is the irrationality behind this belief. The human cervix, biologically designed to expand and accommodate a child with a 12-inch shoulder span, is naturally prone to cause pain during childbirth. This is a reality shared across all mammals, yet somehow, religious leaders concluded that women alone were cursed to suffer. The question remains: Did all other species also share in Eve’s supposed punishment? This glaring contradiction was ignored in favor of the church’s narrative, and countless women suffered and died, their only crime being their desire to help others. But this persecution of midwives and healers was just the beginning of the church's war against knowledge. In the eyes of religious authorities, knowledge itself was the original sin—what led humanity to fall from grace. As a result, anything that threatened the church’s rigid doctrines, anything that dared question their teachings, was condemned. This led to a systematic destruction of knowledge, wisdom, and innovation. Scrolls, manuscripts, and entire libraries were burned, erasing centuries of scientific and medical advancements. It wasn’t just about controlling religious belief; it was about controlling thought itself. Consider the fate of the great minds of the time. Copernicus, who dared to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun, was executed. Galileo, who built upon Copernicus’ work, was imprisoned and silenced. Their only crime was to present truths that contradicted the church’s teachings. These were not isolated incidents but part of a larger pattern of suppression. The church wasn’t interested in understanding the natural world or advancing human knowledge—it sought to maintain its control over the minds of the masses, and anyone who resisted was either imprisoned or killed. [color=#ABC000]The violence wasn’t limited to intellectuals. The Crusades, often romanticized as noble religious wars, were anything but. They were brutal campaigns of conquest, designed to expand the church’s wealth and power. Those who couldn’t pay the church’s tribute were met with soldiers bearing the holy seal, and their lands were pillaged, their cities destroyed. The church cloaked these acts of greed and violence in the language of faith, but in reality, the Crusades were about plunder, not salvation.[/color] What is even more chilling is how effectively the church erased its true history. Today, many believe the Crusades were about spreading Christianity, about evangelism. But the truth is far darker. These were wars of control, justified by a religious doctrine that silenced dissent and erased any trace of resistance. The church destroyed knowledge, suppressed scientific progress, and brutalized those who questioned its authority. [color=#FEA600]This dark history is often forgotten, overshadowed by centuries of carefully crafted narratives that present the church as a force for good. Yet, the horrors of the past remain, hidden beneath the surface of sanitized versions of history. The violent suppression of knowledge, the persecution of those who sought to help others, and the church’s relentless pursuit of power over truth—all of this remains as a testament to how far an institution will go to preserve control, even at the cost of human progress.[/color] |
In the Roman Empire, religious differences had become a growing source of tension. The emperor, fearing that these divisions would lead to the fragmentation of his empire, sought to unify the people under a single state religion. This led to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, which not only solidified Christianity’s dominance but also absorbed aspects of other popular religions at the time. This absorption was strategic—it aimed to ease the transition for people who had previously worshipped gods like Mithras, Apollonius of Tyana, and Horus. By incorporating myths and symbols from these religions, such as the concept of the Immaculate Conception, the Trinity, and specific celebration days, the church made Christianity more palatable to these groups. However, this new religion, while familiar in some ways, was fundamentally different. For instance, the pre-Christian trinity, often represented as man, woman, and child (symbolizing a natural familial structure), was altered to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Sabbath, once observed according to certain traditions, was also changed, further alienating those who were used to their old ways of worship. This resulted in significant unrest and resistance. Those who refused to conform to the government-imposed religion were labeled as heretics, often facing brutal persecution, including execution, destruction of their cultural artifacts, and the burning of temples and libraries. The destruction of knowledge was particularly damaging. Millions of scrolls were burned, erasing centuries of accumulated wisdom, particularly in fields like medicine. The church, in its attempt to establish its supremacy, actively suppressed scientific and medical knowledge, making it illegal for people to practice forms of healing that did not align with the church’s teachings. This was a form of control, where even the idea of seeking medical assistance was tied to religious belief—enforcing the notion that only God, as interpreted by the church, could heal. Furthermore, the church manipulated historical timelines to serve its narrative. A prime example of this manipulation is the idea that the world was created just 6,000 years ago, which was determined by a priest who calculated the ages of biblical figures from Adam to Jesus. This calculation disregarded evidence from archaeology, which shows that human civilization, as well as the Earth itself, is far older. By forcing people to adhere to this truncated version of history, the church effectively limited humanity's understanding of its own past. The church's actions over time, from forced conversions and violent suppression to the deliberate destruction of knowledge, significantly disrupted the course of human history. The claim here is that religion, in this case, Christianity as institutionalized by the Roman Catholic Church, has made us "stupid" by rewriting history in a way that serves its own narrative, disregarding evidence to the contrary. Instead of acknowledging the true age of artifacts and civilizations, humanity was conditioned to believe a skewed timeline that fit the religious doctrine, distorting our understanding of our own existence and origins. To be continued |
Dedicated to @mimishewrote. Many have debated Christianity's role in society, with some asserting that it has had both positive and negative impacts. They might argue that the church's influence in shaping moral, social, and political institutions led to advancements like charitable work, education, and human rights, but at the same time, the darker consequences, such as religious wars, colonialism, and intolerance, have caused immense suffering. Some claim that these two aspects—the "good" and the "bad" of Christianity—are almost evenly matched. [color=#EF0600]However, there is an opposing perspective, which suggests that Christianity may not have contributed positively to the world at all. This view contends that any progress or positive changes attributed to Christianity have been coincidental or reflective of broader societal changes, not inherent to the religion itself.[/color] _ _ _ The rise of the Christian Church gave birth to the Dark Ages, a time when intellectual, cultural, and scientific progress in Europe stagnated for centuries. Before Christianity's dominance, people had the freedom to worship their deities in line with their cultural traditions. These deities often represented the values and historical narratives of specific communities, with moral lessons embedded within these traditions. Allegories and myths from these cultures helped shape ethical frameworks and worldviews that were unique and suited to the environments and circumstances of different peoples. In this earlier era, it was not uncommon for conquered peoples to adopt or blend aspects of their conquerors' belief systems, leading to a form of cultural fusion known as acculturation or syncretism. This blending could create new, hybrid belief systems that reflected both the old and the new, allowing for more fluid transitions in spiritual and cultural practices. However, with Christianity, the process of acculturation was often less flexible. Instead, Christianity sought to eliminate other belief systems, leading to the suppression of local traditions and ways of life, rather than the creation of new, hybrid cultures. |
MimiSheWrote:As a troublesome person, I would sheath my sword, for reasons best known to me. Lest there would be a sojourn aimed at juxtaposing between the so called benefits of religion and demerits .P.S: Only the propagator of religion benefits. |
MimiSheWrote:I understand your perception of what you think the church should be in contrast to what it is today. However, it's important to recognize that your view of what is "right" is shaped by the indoctrination, moral, and cultural influences you were raised with. Since the Roman Catholic Church was established in 325 AD at the behest of the emperor, there have been conflicts over its doctrines. Those who opposed the new teachings were often labeled heretics, excommunicated, or even killed. This division continued for centuries, even after figures like Martin Luther formed the Lutheran Church in protest of the church's practices that diverged from biblical teachings. The Roman Catholic Church was created as a system for the benefit of the government, not necessarily to preach Christ, as evangelized out of Egypt. They tampered with the message, the character, created their own doctrines, and forced all to accept them. Fortunately, we know enough to definitively say that the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t serving the people’s needs, but rather the government’s agenda and their own greed. The Roman Empire fell for the church to reign for hundreds of years after, and it was keen on demanding tributes and killing in the name of God as they have been, even today, the Vatican as a location and her artifacts are testaments to the bloodiness of the Catholic Church. Another uncomfortable truth is that the Church played a significant role in approving the rise of slavery and has been a key player in many wars throughout history, which speaks to her hypocrisy. Much like the Lutheran, Anglican, and Pentecostal churches, each was created based on differing views of Christianity. What we must recognize is that it’s human beings, influenced by their societal and cultural backgrounds, who shape church doctrines. It’s not the Bible which is littered with discrepancies or the Holy Spirit that defines what is right, as we can see from the countless variations in Christian practices, doctrines, and beliefs today. Within the Islamic Faith, there exists different sects. It's easier to summarise another until you go deeper. |
TimiRume:I'm curious to know how we come to believe he is truth |
TimiRume:I'm interested in hearing where this central truth is founded. |
LordReed:Functional according to whose perceptions? That's the problem we are run by perceptions that do not only not celebrate us but limit us except of course those who have engineered the box the society throws everyone into. |
TimiRume:THE REAL TROUBLE IS HOW DID ONE ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS AN AIR PRINCE SPREADING EVIL? EVEN THE CONCEPT OF EVIL IS CREATED OFF PERCEPTION. "The salvation you mention has introduced significant conflicts into our lives. The idea that one has found the 'right' path is, in itself, based on external influences. Unfortunately, belief is often one of the strongest of these influences." Everything we hold as a principle is shaped by outside forces—even the spread of Christianity was heavily influenced by the actions of missionaries and governments. This isn't to discredit faith, but to acknowledge that truth transcends belief. Believing that one path is 'righteous' is still based on perception, which may not hold true for someone with a different worldview. |
This is culled from a different platform I posted on and thought to share here also. It could also be believed to be an excerpt of a book I am working on. Over the years, I’ve written countless articles and made more comments than I can count. One day, a viewer asked me, Why do you keep condemning the way we live? What’s your goal—are you trying to create chaos? At the time, I didn’t have a response. Maybe I was preoccupied, but here’s the answer I should’ve given: Truth. It’s the only thing I believe can save us. Because the world we see? It’s built on secrets and illusions. People spend their lives pretending, just to fit in. Take relationships, for example. So many are founded on lies—marriages sustained by deception. From the moment we’re born, society feeds us falsehoods. Governments create policies and then lie about them. Businessmen sell us substandard products and call them premium. Even scientists develop new medicines, and behind it all, there’s often an air of dishonesty. And religion? Belief is no stranger to bending the truth. We live in a world propped up by these fabrications. At some point, I realized how deeply ingrained these lies are. Everywhere you look, people are trying to gain an advantage, exploit one another, or simply survive through manipulation. It’s not just individuals; entire systems thrive on this deception. These lies have turned the world into an ugly, competitive place where no one truly cares about the other. We're caught in a vicious cycle of dishonesty, where pretending has become second nature, and truth feels almost foreign. [color=#4FA077]So, what am I advocating for? Truth—pure and simple. Does money really make someone more important than another? Classism, like so much else, is based on lies. No one is inherently better—whether they’re sweeping the floors or walking down a red carpet. We’re all actors in the same play, pretending we’re more than we are. But the truth is, none of us are more valuable than anyone else. Only by embracing truth can we break free from these lies and start living authentically.[/color] |
It's a phenomenon many have observed, though few are willing to admit: once a man gets the woman of his dreams, especially as his wife, the fire that fueled the initial chase begins to die out. There's a psychological element at play here, one that has little to do with love and more to do with the thrill of pursuit. As soon as the chase is over, the excitement fades. For some men, the act of pursuing a new woman feels like a validation of their masculinity. The more they can chase, the more they feel "accomplished." But really, isn't this idea a little absurd? Why does chasing women become tied to a man’s sense of worth? It’s not about connection or love anymore—it’s about self-gratification, chasing something to feel “man enough.” But here’s the flip side: what happens if a woman decides to chase another man? The same men who revel in their conquests would find themselves uncomfortable with the idea. Yet, if we’re going by pure biology, it could be argued that women, with their multitude of erogenous zones and heightened capacity for pleasure, would have a more "natural" inclination to stray. But society, of course, doesn’t see it that way. It rarely grants women the same freedom to explore. What this reveals is how dysfunctional our societal norms have become. People often run with the narratives they’ve inherited—scripted ideas of what it means to be a man or a woman in a relationship—without ever questioning if these roles suit them. They’ve forgotten to ask themselves what they want, settling into patterns that are as unsatisfying as they are expected. Consider this: a man may marry a woman he perceives as "proper" or virtuous, perhaps even religiously devout. She fits the image he believes society demands. Yet, behind closed doors, he is chasing after the very type of woman he previously criticized—one who embraces her sensuality unapologetically. In this case, he didn’t marry for happiness, but for appearances. His actions reveal a deeper truth: that many people live lives not for themselves, but to fulfill societal expectations. If we are honest, anyone can be polygamous. The notion that men have a greater "biological" excuse for infidelity is simply unfounded. Take the morning erection, for example. It disappears the moment a man’s mind shifts to other things, like work or stress. Women, on the other hand, deal with cyclical hormonal changes and ovulation, feeling the pull of desire. Yet many remain faithful, despite the societal pressures and temptations they face. If women can remain committed under such conditions, what excuse do men have? The truth is, the problem isn’t biology. It’s how we’ve been programmed to think about relationships and self-worth. Society has long promoted a dysfunctional narrative that allows men to feel validated through infidelity while shaming women for the same behavior. What we need is a reexamination of our beliefs about fidelity, masculinity, and what it means to be in a committed relationship. Only then can we start to undo the damage that these outdated narratives have caused. |
Pastors, priests—whatever name they choose to go by—are colonialists, that they are black doesn't make them any different from the white colonialists.
|
Is it factual?
|
A few posts on belief
|


