₦airaland Forum

Another post appealing to men to marry devus.

budaatum:
Like, if one is worshipping the God who put Adam in a garden and told him not to nourish himself with knowledge, as opposed to the God who created humans in his own Image and told them to rule and subdue and multiply for which knowledge is required?

One would live as a naked ignorant slave instead of a master of all one surveys.

See, ph∅∅, you who ate knowledge, now you cusd to pissing every 2hours from spinal cos. You ain't seen nothing yet. Your spine is going to break but you would still be alive to see you have stomach cancer in addition

Theawakensoul:
🌿 WHAT IF YOU’VE BEEN WORSHIPPING THE WRONG IDEA OF GOD?

Pause… and think about this honestly:

👉 What if the problem is not God…
👉 But the version of God you were given?...

See desperation of satn.

Now its version of God.

As if people do not know when they have been given rubbish just like this one you are saying.

Continue spreading ivu, it would surely fill your house and life

When you are doing the wrong thing, do you not know?

If sense still did not tell you that you are doing the wrong thing then it is your fallt

SpyMaster1:
No, it's not "special atheistic bias." Judging a book by its actual language, historical context, and style is the normal standard used by scholars for all ancient texts including the Gospels, which were also written anonymously and given apostolic names later.

But let's put authorship aside since you want to focus on content.
The Preacher in Ecclesiastes does not cry "All is vanity" because he was "fighting and rebelling against God." He says it because, after trying everything — pleasure, wisdom, wealth, power, and achievement he found that none of it gives lasting meaning. Death levels the wise and the fool, the righteous and the wicked. Injustice often wins. Life under the sun feels like endless cycles with no real progress or purpose. That is the honest observation he repeats over and over.
Christians may "laugh" at this despair, but many of us see it as the book's greatest strength: it refuses to sugarcoat reality with easy religious answers. The Preacher doesn't confess "I tried to evade God and failed, so now fear Him like my father said." He mostly stays focused on how meaningless life appears when you look at it squarely, without illusions.
The real message of Ecclesiastes is not "Don't rebel against God like Solomon supposedly did." The real message is the raw acknowledgment that life can feel completely futile and hopeless when death is the end and no divine justice is obvious in this world. That "futility and hopelessness" is not a special curse on "ungodlies." It's what honest people see when they stop forcing comforting stories onto existence.
The "confession" you keep talking about is mostly read into the text, not clearly stated by the Preacher himself. The book spends far more time on the vanity of life than on any triumphant return to fearing God.

I’m not in denial. I’m comfortable with the possibility that the Preacher was right for most of the book: everything under the sun really is vanity. Adding a neat "Fear God and judgment is coming" at the end may comfort believers,but it doesn't erase the deep existential honesty that fills the rest of Ecclesiastes.
If the main point was really "I tried to live without God and failed," why is that confession so indirect and saved for the final two verses?

It is not the normal standard. All these are things biased people look for when they want to find fallt in a thing that is their object of bias. And writing anonymously has never been wrong, so your judgement is based on prejudice.

That aside, you are only repeating yourself holding on to your denial as you yourself have already confessed that the preacher was depressed and has resigned himself to his fate after all his clear attempts to remove God from himself.

But that Truth makes you uncomfortable which is why you are in denial and have a need to bend it, into a way that makes you comfortable which is the view of whether the things he says are right or not.

And you can see Christians don't care about that small view for they are already covered even better by other parts of the Bible.

Meanwhile, you want to ignore the greater meaning of ecclesiastes, which is about the futility of going against God.

And since you even agree with the preacher, it clearly proves that you too, like the preacher are anti God, and so you are in denial of the fact that the preacher tells you that your enterprise is vain.

And i already told you that it ended that way because the preacher is aware that akm his acts were very much public and already known and recorded but your bias and denial will not allow you accept it.

So, as you rightly observed, the preacher spends time on the things of life you men seek and pursue, declaring that vanity meets you all.

However, Christians we have a different outcome, life is very sweet and death is even sweeter as we know that we are going to a better world than this. And funny, the Solomon did not find this, however, his father who even taught him to put him in the position to gain his wisdom was even wiser than him to see it.

And while the father died a happy forgiven man, remembered by God,he died sorrowfully a rejected man that God even raised another "David" to replace him like saul.

So, you see, his words and the things he suffered teach us Christians why it is f∅∅...ish to go against God.

For you, you can take what you want to take but I don't vanity has any profit or use to anyone but maybe it is useful to you.

Another stupee post to remind men of women and sex.

Aunty, go and cut your brǝs, men don't want to have anything to do with you ivu tins

SpyMaster1:
You’re right that I don’t accept the traditional claim that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. But this isn’t some special “atheist bias” against the Bible it’s the same standard applied to many ancient texts.
Even the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not written by the apostles whose names they carry. Most biblical scholars (including many believing Christian scholars) agree that:
These books were written anonymously decades after Jesus’ death (between 70–100 CE or later).
The titles “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark,” etc., were added later by the early church, not by the authors themselves.
The actual writers were educated Greek-speaking Christians, not the uneducated Aramaic-speaking fishermen or tax collectors described in the stories.

This is standard mainstream scholarship, not fringe atheist invention. Just like with Ecclesiastes, people in the ancient world often wrote in the name of famous figures (a literary device called pseudepigraphy) to give their work more authority.
And even if we set authorship aside, the core issue remains: most of Ecclesiastes is filled with raw skepticism. “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” Everything under the sun feels meaningless. Death makes everyone equal. The Preacher questions what happens after death. The sudden pious ending (“Fear God and keep His commandments, for God will judge every secret thing”) only comes at the very last two very verses

Whether the author was Solomon or a later anonymous writer using a Solomonic voice doesn’t change the fact that the skeptical core reads like an almost godless observation of how absurd and temporary life can feel.
Calling this “denial” or “Satan catching men” doesn’t address the actual words on the page. It just dismisses the deep existential honesty that makes Ecclesiastes stand out.
I’m comfortable with the possibility that life really has no built-in cosmic meaning and that death is the end. The “bitter truth” might be exactly the vanity the Preacher described for most of the book not the neat religious conclusion added at the end.

It is a special atheistic bias standard as the normal standard of measurement of Truth, is that a book is judged by its contents and not by its cover or use of language.

Putting that aside, i see that your only interest in Ecclesiastes is not to discover why he wrote it depressingly but in the futility and hopelessness of life, which is a cus God gives to all ungodlies.

So, when preacher Solomon cries that all is vain, we Christians laugh at him for that is what happens to those who go fighting and rebelling against God.

Which is why much as you do not wish to accept the Truth the main point of ecclesiastes is him confessing his failures in his attempt to evade and live without God leading to confess that his father was right and that man should Fear God,

And it takes a special bias and powerful denial to block accepting that the preacher is Solomon whom you saw lived in deliberate defiance of God, as the preacher still confessed in Ecclesiastes.

SpyMaster1:
However, I do not personally believe Solomon wrote it, and the majority of biblical scholars (both religious and secular) today also do not believe he did.
Here’s why:
The language of Ecclesiastes contains many late Hebrew words, Aramaic influences, and Persian-style expressions that were not used in Solomon’s time (10th century BCE). The book reads more like something written hundreds of years later, probably in the 3rd or 4th century BCE, long after Solomon was dead.
The author calls himself “Qoheleth” (the Preacher/Teacher), not Solomon. He speaks as if he is looking back on a king’s life, but he never actually names himself Solomon.

The book has a very skeptical, almost cynical tone that feels different from the confident wisdom we see in Proverbs (which is also traditionally linked to Solomon).
Even if we pretend Solomon wrote it, my main point still stands: the bulk of the book is filled with raw despair “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” .

Interesting. Never heard this before.

Now, i can see the beginning of your problems.

Secondly, your basis of unbelief is quite ridiculous as it is funny you accept proverbs but dispute ecclesiastes even when the person opens Ecclesiastes saying words of "the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.". Then your basis is on language preference and that he never named himself "Solomon".

So, when people write it is out of place for them not to mention their names?

And so when Eminem (Marshall Mathers) wrote "i'm slim shady" it was no longer Marshall Mathers? This is ridiculous.

Since you are an atheist this is just you using a flimsy and ridiculous excuse to justify your refusal in accepting the bible.

So, already you have a hidden unreasonable bias against the Bible a first barrier before you now go into the contents of the bible.

Hence, your strict and unreasonable alignment with Ecclesiastes is simply born out of the fact you both share the same depression that falls on God rebellers and haters hence your unreasonable refusal to accept things which upset your atheistic beliefs.

Hence proof of denial

SpyMaster1:
Yes, traditionally many people believe the Preacher (Qoheleth) in Ecclesiastes is Solomon. That’s the common view.
But even if we accept that Solomon wrote it, my point still stands...

Why do you keep using the word "traditionally"? This means that you do not agree as your statement "But even if we accept that Solomon wrote it" says.

So, already you have a problem which is that you do not believe that it is Solomon who wrote the Ecclesiastes

Why do you not think it is Solomon who wrote it?

SpyMaster1:
You're repeating the same point, but it still doesn't change what the text actually says.
Yes, Solomon (according to the historical accounts) broke commandments — he multiplied wives and turned to other gods. That's recorded in 1 Kings.
But in Ecclesiastes itself, the Preacher never says:
“I deliberately disobeyed God’s commands about wives and gods in order to shake off His hand. Now I admit defeat and tell you to fear Him.”
Instead, he describes trying pleasure, wealth, building projects, and “whatsoever mine eyes desired” and concludes that all of it is vanity. He doesn’t frame his actions as rebellion against God. He frames them as an experiment to see if any of it brings lasting meaning. And his verdict is clear: it doesn’t. Death still comes to everyone. Injustice continues. Life under the sun feels absurd and empty.
If the whole book was meant to be Solomon’s confession of failed rebellion, why is that strong religious conclusion saved for the absolute end? Why does the rest of the book sound so skeptical — even questioning whether anything survives death (“Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward…?” Eccl 3:19-21)?

The real bitter truth might be that Solomon’s (or the Preacher’s) experiments showed exactly what many atheists observe today: no amount of pleasure, power, or even “righteous living” escapes the vanity and finality of death. Adding “but God will judge everything” at the end may make it easier to swallow, but it doesn’t erase the skepticism that fills the rest of the book.
You can’t force me to accept your interpretation, and I won’t force mine on you. But the text itself leans much more toward existential despair than a neat story of rebellion and divine victory.

First let me clear the funny thing you are doing for you keep saying "the preacher, the preacher". So, is the preacher in Ecclesiastes not Solomon?

No they are not!

They are sat.an.ist carrying bibles

davillian:
When the religion is a cult
Are you expecting them to love other rivals

The hatred is 4much that from now on if anybody joins us saying Christian and Muslims, i am going to say don't join us oo, Muslims hate us pass devu

SpyMaster1:
But notice what he doesn't say: He never mentions rebelling against God, trying to shake off God's hand, gathering 1000 women specifically to defy the commandment, or wanting to prove God is dispensable....

You are just making me repeat myself for i told you earlier that why would he do that when he already knows what God Commanded "do not go after other gods"/ "thou shalt not multiply thy wives yet he willfully and deliberately disobeys.

Then the same he who went after other gods now tells you "Fear God, and keep his commandments:"

As i said i cannot force you to accept what is in front of you eyes

Tsarbomba:
I don learn something today, nice interesting post. I think this might be on front page, for more public discourse and debates to this interesting topic Seun 🤔

Seun no go put dis one for Front page. Devu go vex for am

BlackfireX:
You were analysing why Islam hated Jesus and giving some reasons

And I said it is way back in history the hatred started

I used the arabic name of Jesus... you highlighted it .... I explained it.

Whatelse?

You said "it is way back in history the hatred started" so tell us the history of the hatred.

Omoawoke:
You accused someone of being involved in something and I asked you bring proof,…
Then you are asking to me proof he wasn’t involve 😂😂

See fallacy of reversing the burden of proof! 😁

If you know you are right, why are you dodging and trying to reverse the burden of proof? 😁

I gave you a known fact for you to rebut you but rather counter, you are dodging and moved post to demand further proof. It does not work that way 🤣🤣🤣

SpyMaster1:
..
The Preacher never mentions his 1000 women, his idolatry, or any personal rebellion. He speaks in broad, universal terms about how everything under the sun is vanity wisdom, pleasure, wealth, building projects, and even righteousness all feel meaningless because death levels everyone. He questions the afterlife with real skepticism: man and beast have the same fate, same breath, same end. "Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward...?" (Eccl 3:19-21).
That's not the voice of someone saying "I tried to shake off God and failed, so fear Him." It sounds like someone honestly describing how empty and absurd life feels when you look at it without easy religious answers.

The strong conclusion "Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment" only appears in the very last two verses (12:13-14). To many readers and scholars, this feels like a later pious addition by an editor who wanted to give the book a more orthodox, comforting close. Without those verses, the book ends exactly as it began: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."
You're inferring a big dramatic story of rebellion and divine rejection. But the book itself reads more like raw existential reflection on a world where meaning is hard to find and death is final. The "God will judge everything" part feels like the sweet comfort added afterward, rather than the bitter truth the Preacher spent most of the book confronting.
I'm not in denial. I'm saying the honest power of Ecclesiastes is in its willingness to face the vanity and meaninglessness head-on, without rushing to "Fear God and everything will be judged fairly." That skeptical core feels far more truthful than turning the whole thing into a morality tale about Solomon trying (and failing) to dispense with God.
The facts of Solomon's life are one thing. What the actual words in Ecclesiastes say is another. And those words lean heavily toward "life under the sun often feels pointless" rather than "don't rebel against God like I did."

Why would he mention his 1000 women when he can tell us why he gathered them?

"I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure.

I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards:

7 I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house;

10 And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy;

As I said, you are heavy in denial and you cannot accept the Truth laid before your very eyes. Anyway, Truth is never easy to swallow especially as people prefer lies over Truth. That is why satan is nearly always successful in catching men

BlackfireX:

You don't know I was referring to Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Merciful, the gracious.

That is the syriac Aramaic name that the Arabian later copy .

Should I go on

By Google translate, i saw it. But you said that he was hated and that i should check history. But unfortunately, Google docs not have it. So, what does history say about this old hate thing

TenQ:
Qur'an 5:51
“O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies (awliyāʾ); they are allies of one another. Whoever turns to them as allies will be counted among them; indeed, Allāh does not guide the wrongdoing people.”


Qur’an 3:28
“Let not the believers take the disbelievers as allies (awliyāʾ) instead of the believers; whoever does so will have nothing (of protection) from Allāh except as a means of self‑protection from them.”

Qur'an 9:29
“Fight those who do not believe in Allāh nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allāh and His Messenger have made unlawful, nor follow the religion of truth, among those who have previously received the Scripture (Christians and Jews) until they willingly pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued.”

If he is NOT the Al-Makr, who else can he be?

Hmmm! This is even more craz...

If their book say that their allah would handle us, then how does this translate to murder filled hatred?

And since they say that their allah would handle us, so why are they not leaving it for him?

Abi, it is themselves that is the allah? This would even be clearer so that the world of unbelievers according to Muslims would know that they are the allah

OgaSeun:
Your brain don off..
What if is all we can do since we were not really there.

If you had breine before you would have remembered that did you start with"what if" before? No!

BlackfireX:
Bismi l-Abi wal -ibni wa r-Ruhi l-Qudus.

For you to understand why they hated YASU AL MASSIH AL RAHMAN AL RAHIM.

YOU NEED TO GO BACK BACK IN HISTORY AND TIME LINE

Give us the brief history of why they hate your Yasu al guy

Kdon2:
Christianity threatens their region. It makes it less appealing that's why.

But we are not doing anything. They are the ones who are still doing the old barbaric practice of invading lands and jihad. See how Fulanis have filled every southern village and state.

CodeTemplar:
When John was speaking in book of John,he said ths spirit of anti-christ was already in the world. Islam was just metamorphing about that time. It finally materialized into a movement/religion and has been spreading ever since.

Oh! That explains why Paul mentions Mecca and Muslims are in blood thirsty rage for him

AntiChristian:
Are you same as StillDtruth?

Did you not know before? This is not the first time that I am using it to speak to you

SpyMaster1:
I understand your point background matters. Solomon had great wealth, many wives, turned to other gods, and lived a life of excess. That history is clear.
But even with that background, Ecclesiastes, it still doesn't read like a personal confession of “I rebelled against God and now I admit defeat.” The Preacher doesn’t talk about his harem, his idolatry, or trying to shake off God’s hand. Instead, he speaks in universal terms: everything under the sun is vanity, death levels the wise and the fool, injustice thrives, and we can’t know what happens after death.
He doesn’t say “I did all these bad things to prove God is dispensable.” He says life feels meaningless no matter what you pursue. That feels less like a defeated rebel’s apology and more like an honest observation of how empty existence can be.
You keep saying I’m refusing to see the “bitter truth.” But for me, the bitter truth in Ecclesiastes is exactly the skeptical part: life is short, death is final, meaning is hard to find, and God (when mentioned) often feels distant. The sweet lie might actually be the sudden ending that says “Fear God, keep His commandments, God will judge everything” as if that neatly fixes all the despair that came before it.

Many readers see that final conclusion (Eccl 12:13-14) as a later addition by editors who wanted to make the book sound more pious. Without those last verses, the book ends on pure “Vanity of vanities” which matches the tone of the rest much better.
I’m not swallowing a flattering lie. I’m saying the raw, existential honesty in most of Ecclesiastes is more truthful than trying to turn it into “Solomon tried to defeat God and lost, so fear God.” That interpretation feels like adding comfort on top of the bitterness the Preacher actually described.
The quotes about bitter truth vs sweet lie are interesting, but they work both ways. Sometimes the bitterest truth is that there is no grand divine plan, no guaranteed resurrection, and no escaping the finality of death. Comforting ourselves with “God will judge and remember the righteous” may feel better, but it might also be the sweeter story we tell ourselves to avoid facing the void.

How can you be looking for "I rebelled against God and now I admit defeat." when you have already been given every fact for you to infer?

For example, you see and said that he went after other gods yet he says at the end Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing,

Again, you see he appropriated 1000 women, an obviously deliberate number done against God's Commandment of thou shalt not multiply thy wives, and yet, you are still looking for Solomon to say to you "I rebelled against God and now I admit defeat."?

C'mon man, you are swimming in gross denial and truth is that while i can only present you the with the facts and argue them as i can reasonably do, i cannot force you to accept the impression and meaning of them.

Just as The Name Jesus Christ enrages Sata.n, so does the Name infuriate Muslims.

Which means that
Islam = Satan

Why are Muslims so murderfully vexed about Jesus and Christianity

There is only one answer explaining it, which is that they are S.A.TAN.I.st

When you see Muslim hatred for Christians and Jesus Christ displayed this way, one wonders why/what is really going on.

For many people even think that islam and Christianity are the same and one but looking at the aggression and hatred islam has for Christianity, it is clear that islam hates Christianity and the hatred is deep sitteth and one full of murder full rage.

Exactly like the one the Pharisees had for Jesus and His followers. Exactly how satan hates God's things and always seeks to destroy them.

Thus, when we see things like these.
https://www.nairaland.com/8653665/bandits-torture-unijos-student-john#139096384

https://www.nairaland.com/6663198/breaking-muslim-brother-christian-attacks#103969637

https://www.nairaland.com/6389436/former-ugandan-imam-beaten-death#98551091

SpyMaster1:
I have read about Solomon the wealth, the 700 wives, the idolatry, the turning away from God in his old age. That background is well known.
But here's the thing: even with all that, when I read Ecclesiastes itself, it doesn't read like a personal confession of "I tried to rebel against God and failed, so now I admit defeat."

You cannot read ecclesiastes without that background because no one says anything out of nothing. Everything always has a cause and a reason. So since you have read about his acts, therefore you can see (if you truly want to see) all that causes him to say what he says in Ecclesiastes.

And why would he say "i rebelled against The Lord" when he already knows that people have already seen his acts?

This is a case of you refusing to see and accept the Truth right in front of you

We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter.- Dennis Diderot.

Well, i understand

People get to choose between the sweet lie or the bitter truth. I say the bitter truth, but many people don't want it. -Avigdor Lieberman

OgaSeun:
Odensi.. What if the father turned a new leaf before the child gets to the age he can differentiate left from right...

Mumudin, now "what if" has started and you thought you had cense.

Omoawoke:
Provide a proof anywhere in the world that Orunmila did what you claimed….

I don’t like conversing with unintelligent people, it’s so difficult actually…

And sorry, nothing is clean about Christinity..

The entire Bible is so detty and filled with the most barbarically inspired verses anyone can ever think of

1. Father sleeping with daughter
2. Someone spilling semen on floor
3. Israel god commanding Israelite to kill all the women, children, and suckling babies ?
4. A bear tearing 42 kids apart and eating them
5. Jepthath sacrificing his daughter and buring her alive for jehoavh
6. People eating babies

Lol, the list of abominations are endless

Ignoring your deflection,i have already asked you if Orunmila was not involved in the wars like the Owu War or the Osogbo war or the Ibadan-ijebu wars and you did not deny it, so you cannot be asking me to prove what you yourself have impliedly admitted.