₦airaland Forum

Mujtahida:
Ordinary literal rule of interpretation. Have you read Merchant of Venice, the part about the pound of flesh? It's simple ooo: give me the go ahead to open a thread is not the same as opening the said thread with my moniker on it. Two entirely different thing

Chief, can't you see she already has succumbed and said she is ready to remove the moniker ni?
Make I no talk further, cos now pesin go take am otherwise

Mujtahida:
Ohhhhhh pleasssse. Get a hang. Don't push me to become caustic as I can well be cos I get the undertones of your comments. Get off my back! Na your moniker?
Emmanystone has been polite in her positions and that's what I expect from any other person. Mutual respect. If you want to be insultive by throwing subtle shades I will just ignore you. If you think you can railroad me particularly with your hounding pursuit then omo you are on the wrong Road. You'd hit a brickwall.

The moniker isn't copyrighted nor trademarked.

You can gra-gra, huff and puff till your face turns blue, nothing is going to change.

You can whine until when the chickens come home to roost it won't change nada

If I were you, that had my ID on a thread, I would have just shut my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and not be bothered
Your going on about it, is much ado about nothing.
It's only a moniker
Grab a chill pill mayne.

Mujtahida:
I respect you.
If you cannot extend the same grace to me then there's no basis for discussing with you

The respect is mutual brother
Right shame, if you feel this way, over a ten-a-penny moniker
I have never come across such so emotionally attached to a moniker like you've demonstrated.
What is at stake, if your moniker remains pinned to the thread title?
You aren't libelled, you aren't slandered, so what is it?
Psychology? Power game?

Mujtahida:
I am not hopeful.landlord, am I? Stick to the terms of our agreement. Simple.

Mujtahida:
You assume too much. I am an atheist because I don't believe in Jehovah, the Jewish idol? You assume too much.
Disappear how? When I'd be on the thread gidigba but for you using my moniker on the title? Argument na my work ooo not to talk of arguing against a religion I detest so much. It's too small a challenge.

Ah-ha what is it again now?
Why are you so attached to the Mujtahida ID?
What's so special about it that you are so sentimental over it?
Does it vomit bundles of money after twelve midnight?
What is it gangan paapaa sef?
You're increasingly turning into a drip with this your whining now raised to the power 2

Mujtahida:
Not whining. Not at all. I don't like it that my moniker is on the thread. That was not the bargain at all. My moniker on the thread has nothing to do with showing the contradictions and the lies in the bible.
I am not one to run from an intellectual debate. Argument na my work. I mean it even professionally. So forget about whining.

Let him remove my moniker and let's get down to business.
And do quit the condescension in your tone @the bolded. Respect is my first and last touchstone for any sort of engagement.

Mujtahida:
This is what I agreed to. Nowhere did you say you open a thread with my moniker on it. You didn't say 'give me the go ahead to open the thread with moniker.' So stand by what I agreed to. Open the thread without my moniker and we are good.

Cc Emmanystone

butterflyl1on:
She decided to do one better. She decided not to mention just you but to also include others. We are not complaining, so why the fuss over a disposable ID?

I think we should advise him to copyright and trademark Mujtahida

If there is a whining competition in the Olympics, even without test trials, Naija will be guaranteed a place on the Gold podium

Mujtahida:
You threw me a wager and I accepted it does not mean you'd use my moniker to open the thread. I find that disrespectful and offensive. I have politely asked you to remove it cos when I accepted the challenge I didn't accept that my moniker would be used as the title of the thread. That was never stated by you as part of the bargain.
Since you want to look for a cheap means of saying ohhh he's run away, then I'd simply abandon your thread and open another one where I'd post all the contradictions and lies since you cannot out of respect oblige my simple request.

But for the record I'm not chickening out. Naaa. I'd open the thread and post the link here on this thread so that everyone can know I stood by the challenge.

C'mon mayne, all this whining over a ten a penny ID?
Disrespectful? Offensive? Pftt
Pull the other leg

butterflyl1on:
Not while he was highpriest. Within the period he became highpriest.
You cannot win this one
so stop trying to twist the scripture.
I asked you to explain in your own words the phrase "in the days".

I am still waiting.

Sarassin:
There is nothing to "win" here
and there is nothing to explain.
Jesus' words are quite clear and there's no need to split a homogeneous statement by Jesus just for the sake of apologetics.
If you believe that Jesus' statement in the Book of Mark was truly referring to Ahimelech then fine, I respect your position and I leave it at that.

I am quite sure the "win" was a misspeak

Mujtahida:
Nooo. Please remove my moniker from the topic of the thread. It's not necessary.
And moreover I don't want to be getting mentions.
Do that and I will fire my first salvo

I was just actually about going to agree with you that, it isn't necessary opening this thread
but then I took a peek up and immediately saw hopefulLandlord quoting you and couldn't help not noticing in the quote, you parroting that "a snake talked to Adam and Eve"
Get a grip mayne, it wasn't for crying out loud, a snake talking to Adam and Eve nau.
At least, get the fact right

About Muhammed flying on a winged horse.
Wait, let me laugh a bit, before continuing. Bwahahaha!
Trust Muhammed to do a mimic of the chariot of fire appearing, drawn by horses of fire scene and how Elijah got carried by a whirlwind into heaven

For almost everything in the bible, if not already turned upside down or twisted, you can bet your bottom dollar, there is a caricature of it in this other famous book

Sarassin:
So, what’s new in men reinforcing the misogyny of 1 Tim 2:11-14?

Paul was very clear in 1 Corinthians 14: 33-36 and if you think that what Emmanystone wrote up there is “shedding light” then I truly despair for what passes for Christianity these days, Paul begins those verses with the words “As in all the congregations of the Lord’s peoples…” the inference here is that whatever he is about to say next is the general norm of all churches…a pre-existing state being extended to the church at Corinth, the kicker here are the words “ as the Law states…” words that are quite simply astonishing because here is the man who claimed to have abrogated the law now appealing to the law.

This was no ordinary one-off letter to a bunch of unruly women. Paul here laid down existing ecclesiastical directives rooted in the law as it stood at that time with regards the conduct of women in the Lord’s gathering and these directives persisted
Personally I do not believe that Paul was misogynistic in his personal dealings with women this is clear from the relationships he had with other women including the likes of Prisca, Julia and Phoebe and having read the apocryphal "Acts of Paul and Thecla"

Glad to read this about how you in a positive light, personally see Paul.
We live in a man's world, which from Jesus' time to date, increasingly is becoming a woman’s world

Sarassin:
The elephant in the room of course is that the Pastoral Epistles are not considered the writings of Paul, but that's a discussion for another day

It's no elephant in no room, when this in the past came up, I had posited that if not all, are Paul's authorship, nothing wrong in a ghost writer filling in for him

Sarassin:
The point I was trying to make which you have clearly missed, up there on your slippery soap-box is that I am referring to the societal norms and values of the times, perpetuated and reflected in statements such as 1 Tim 2 :11-14 and that requiring a man to obtain the consent of his wife for sex was tantamount to giving him a free pass.

I didn't miss the point you were trying to make
I saw it but just over stepped it because it was a red herring.
Compare 1 Timothy 2:12 with Priscilla whom you so gladly admitted you know.
Was Priscilla told off for teaching Apollos?

Also no one, not even Paul, not even in the remotest posited nor required that a man should to obtain the consent of his wife for sex.
What the earlier verse 1 Corinthians 7:1 and the passage surrounding it, was talking about was the question put to Paul, whether it was good for a man, not to have sexual relations with a woman. It had nothing on or about free pass

hopefulLandlord:
I don't see how this is pertinent to this discussion

Fair dos

hopefulLandlord:
This is highly illogical, of course I "indirectly did" just like my $5 bill dropping from my pocket unknown to me probably bought a meal for someone that morning but it doesn't in anyway solve the contradiction I'm pointing out the contradiction and the only way it can solve it is if Judas, when asked what he wanted them to do with the money, said "Buy me the potter's field"

It isn't old friend, try this for size then:
How did God harden Pharaoh's heart then?

Mujtahida:
You say so based on what is written in the book. God's inspired book is the work of his hands as seen in nature not some contrivance of men.
Inspired by God yet filled with errors, historical untruths, contradictions, absurdities, outright lies. So much for inspiration. And the Koran too is inspired by the one and only Living God as well as the Vedas and the Bhagavad gita, as well as the shamans of various primitive tribes. All these too can lay as much equal claim to being inspired by the Living God as much as the Bible

You conflating translations with the scripture

Mujtahida:
I ask you how did God speak to men before writing was invented?

Does your God have a mouth?

And I responded that all scripture is inspired by God.
I didn't infer all translations are inspired by God

The mouth is a God creation, God invented mouth.
God does not have a mouth

God doesn't need a mouth to communicate, God doesnt need a mouth to inspire etcetera.

hopefulLandlord:
This sermon is highly unnecessary and this hermeneutics doesn't solve the contradiction one bit

Did Judas buy the potters field or the priests?
If I throw a money at you and tell you to do whatever you want with it and you use it to buy Methamphetamine.
did I buy the Meth or you?
All Judas did was concede ownership of the money in acts while Mathew said he bought a land with the money it. there's obviously an unreconcilable contradiction there and I've even gone through discussion of this on Reddit before bringing it here

Yes, you inadvertently and indirectly did,
albeit it's the person you threw money at who directly used your money thrown at him/her to buy it

There is this beautiful young but alcoholic lady I usually come across.
Every time I see her, she most of times is holding an alcohol can, drunk as a skunk if not tipsy.
She asks me for money, but I decline because I know, no sooner the money is going on, to buy booze
and that will be me, inadvertently and/or indirectly buying that booze for her

Mujtahida:
You serve a purportedly living God yet all you have done is to quote verses from a book to me.
Smh. Anyway I don't want to join issues with you on this thread as regards all you have said.
I respect your wishes that I do not derail your thread.
Perhaps on some other thread we will cross swords. Cheers

The irony is, book is inspired, by the one and only Living God

Emmanystone:
Well, that may be true, but the Corinthians to whom this letter was addressed wasn't that Patriarchal, that's because of their acceptance of goddesses as Supreme deities.
It was for the Jews, not necessarily for the Greeks.

We see how that manifested in women trying to bring the society into the church where women ruled over men in the society,
so brought it into the Church, hence; the command for women to keep silent in Church.

And, when it comes to the bed, you'd be surprised how strong men melt. Patriarchy hardly comes up in bed. Except the man doesn't love his wife.

Sarassin:
Still a bit mixed up.
You say the Corinthians were not patriarchal
but you then go on to say that the letters were addressed to the Jews, who were indeed highly patriarchal,
so my original proposition still holds.
The command to women to hold their peace in church had nothing to do with societal issues as you put it,
it was more to do with the fact that early Christian leaders
at that time considered that women could not think for themselves, lacked intelligence
and could not hold intellectual doctrinal discourse, read the writings of Tertullian on the matter.

@bolded, I disagree entirely

Emmanystone:
The Letter was addressed to the Corinthian belivers who weren't so patriachial as a result of their allegiance to female deities, unlike the Jews who knew YHWH as male only.

@bolded, i also disagree with you entirely.
Paul was solving a case of disorderliness in the church. He was setting up rules how the church setting should be run.

If this is about orderliness, it then follows that women were causing disorderliness,
hence; needed to be tamed and kept in control.

If you say women were considered less humans by even the Apostles,
you'd have to explain why the Holy Spirit was given to them in the same measure which was given to the men.

Or was He given to the men only?

Emmanystone Bravo! Encore! Standing ovation
".. tamed and kept in control" is bit too strong and OTT to use though

Let a woman learn with a quiet spirit, and submissively.
- 1 Timothy 2:11

Sarassin I believe Emmanystone has shed light on 1 Corinthians 14:34

so mine will be on 1 Timothy 2:11 above
The greek word used up there in 1 Timothy 2:11, is "hesuchia"
and this term "hesuchia" doesn't mean speechlessness
but alludes to a situation in which people arent protesting or arguing
No noise, no stirring agitation...

Now lets recognise that the above verse is from a particular letter, Paul wrote to Timothy,
and this letter actually started at 1 Timothy 1 and not from 1 Timothy 2

Paul began 1 Timothy 1, by first reminding Timothy of how he told Timothy to stay at Ephesus
To stay there, so Timothy can stop men teaching strange doctrines (i.e. false teaching)
Fast forward 1 Timothy 1, to 1 Timothy 2, things have gone from bad to worse
This due to the influence of goddess, known as Artemis of the Ephesians,
Same goddess which is that prominent enough, to be actually mentioned, at least 5 times, in Acts 19

Paul is thwarting the influence of the goddess, known as Artemis of the Ephesians on women
and stopping any platform that promotes and/or spreads her false teaching(s)

It's so true this line, paraphrasing one of budaatum's posits:
The things that you're liable to read and thought you've understood in the Bible - it ain't necessarily so
So Sarassin, its not what you thought Paul said or meant about women

Emmanystone:
How did your day go, sir?

Day went well Ma'am.
I am now just lounging on my chaise trying to unwind
Trust yours went well.

Sarassin:
Yes I am

What of Apollos?

Sarassin:
Still a bit mixed up.
You say the Corinthians were not patriarchal but you then go on to say that the letters were addressed to the Jews, who were indeed highly patriarchal, so my original proposition still holds.
The command to women to hold their peace in church had nothing to do with societal issues as you put it, it was more to do with the fact that early Christian leaders at that time considered that women could not think for themselves,
lacked intelligence
and could not hold intellectual doctrinal discourse,
read the writings of Tertullian on the matter.

@bolded, I disagree entirely

Are you familiar with the person or name, Priscilla?

MizMyColi:
Yes, it is carnal.
I agree.

People should not have sex in marriage.

Marriage is not meant for sex.

Sex in marriage, sorry, fasting, defies the matrimonial bed.

When you fast, you should not talk to your hubby either.

Remove your self from the world.

Oil and water don't mix.

The things of God and the things of man don't mix either.

You are either here or there.

No inbetweeners.

Jesus will spit you out!

[img]https://s1/images/muttDuckEyed.jpg[/img]

Mujtahida:
The believing brain.
Anyway let me respect your wishes and not derail your thread

Emmanystone:
Thank you

My invited guests are cultured

FlipGamBino:
LMAO!!!!!.... Sarassinnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
I have not had a reason to laugh this hard in weeks.
But then I don't think this story is complete, I am particularly interested in a detailed narrative as to how she met the Holy Spirit

Sarassin:
Talk about lighting a fuse.

The wind blows wherever it wants.
Just as you can hear the wind
but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going,
so you can't explain how people are born of the Holy Spirit or how they met the Holy Spirit

Sarassin:
Well, I hardly think rolling over and falling asleep after sexual exertion is the main reason for avoiding the act during fasting

Now for the matters you wrote about:
"It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman
-1 Corinthians 7:1

1 Corinthians 7:1 is the genesis or what originated Paul's advice

Someone clever, thought it is a good idea not to have sexual relations with a woman and asked Paul about it.

Paul improved the question, by responding that, if at all one wants to not have sexual relations with a woman, then it has to be mutually consented.
Why answer the question in this manner, it is because his reply was in the context or background of marriage.
Except if tired, women aren't biologically wired up, to want to immediately roll over and fall asleep after having sex.

If a man is on a fasting mission and praying session, then as a safety measure, such man might want to stay away from having sex, so not to have interruptions in his focused plan
but then, that isn't an excuse to deny your partner their conjugal rights on that basis and without a mutual consent.

That is the gist of the matter.
Having sex not only induces sleep, it also drains and makes you lighter through losing a few hundred kilograms

Sarassin:
but I defer to your superior knowledge on the matter

Dont waste your charm on me

Sarassin:
Broadly, I concur.
Therefore by extension sex between consenting couples during a fasting period cannot be carnal. And yes you are right, that verse was never a command. The point of divergence for me is on the insistence that it must be by consent, here I disagree, Paul's own views on women are ambivalent to say the least and there was never any concept of equality of the sexes in first century Palestine, this idea of a man seeking his wife's consent for sex would be alien, in my view, it was an afterthought.

If not familiar with Paul's style of writing and idiosyncrasies, then he is often misunderstood and pigeon-holed like you've just done
You also toe the afterthought line like budaatum does

Emmanystone:
Lol. You know a lot, that's why you became my own Mia Caro. No one, but you.

Sarassin:
Aaah Cara Mia nothing can change my love for you, except when you quote dodgy verses.
That verse in Corinthians is quite clear, Paul pre-supposes that Sex is good, he also pre-supposes that sex during fasting is not even an issue subject to consent, I agree largely with my good friend butterflylion in his comments ,
though I disagree slightly with the legal largesse, I believe that the consent to be sought is that both parties “agree not to engage in sex” during a fasting period, other than that- then there should be no reason why either the husband or the wife denies the other, the pleasure of its charms or the nectar of its flower.

I would go further and say that the use of the word “consent” is in itself a bit of a red herring since we were dealing with a patriarchy anyway, that consent was merely code for…."if the husband agrees"
In reality the woman’s views on the matter were irrelevant.

The greek word used in that verse was "sumphonos", it means and is correctly translated as "mutual consent"
In reality, all men have the feeling and/urge to immediately roll over and fall to sleep after having sex and/or making love whereas the woman is left wide awake

A guy on a fasting and prayer mission might want consider not having sex with his wife because of not wanting to fall asleep after and thereby jeopardise his fasting and prayer mission, but as Paul was asked about, whether it was good for a man not to have sexual relation with a woman, he broadened the answer, to squash and deal with any thought of denying having sex with one another on the basis of being on a fasting and prayer mission.

His advice was, you can, note in 1 Corinthians 7:6 it wasn't a command though but is an advice, you can abstain from having sex with other for having a meaningful fasting and prayer mission BUT it has to be on mutual consent.
At least if mutually consented, then veering into sexual immorality can't be a defence

Sarassin:
I don't think you thought this one through and ascribing your thoughts to the Holy Spirit is rather disingenuous.

I wouldn't begrudge her about that.
Sometimes you have to grow into what exactly the Holy Spirit is offering for wear

Sarassin:
The reasoning here is flawed and disjointed, you went up a hill and came down a mountain.
Like to see what the brethren have to say.

That's why I said my sister could have blown me over with a feather

Emmanystone:
Like I said, fasting is all shades of selflessness just like God who because he gave us Jesus, how can he not along with Jesus give us all things.

We please God by focussing on the people we see. The Bible says "how can you say you love God but hate your brother"?

1st John 4:7 -8 says

Beloved let us LOVE ONE ANOTHER, for LOVE IS OF GOD. FOR EVERYONE THAT LOVES IS BORN OF GOD AND KNOWS GOD....... HE THAT DOES NOT LOVE DOES NOT KNOW GOD FOR GOD IS LOVE.

Fasting is all about Love for others.


We are saying the same thing.
However it is fasting and not fasten

Jesus said, when I was homeless you sheltered me. Naked you clothed me, in prison you visited me.........

Whatsoever you do to the least of these ones you do unto me.
Well, the Holy Spieit replaced Fasting with Fastening. I never ever associated fasting with tying or fastening two things together until i now. So, am obliged to go with Him
I will reply the others in the evening.
I garrogo naw

I know the feeling, I left home late this morning because of leaving responses on the thread.
Even after leaving, had to find a place to park, to continue again responding

Emmanystone:
I gave names. For just Sex, Onan with Tamar,

And, Isaac and Rebecca for love making.


So, since having sex in marriage is Holy, you'd say Homosexual couples are engaging in a Holy act?
It's marriage, isn't it?

Homosexual couples are having sex, they aren't making love. There is a difference.
Adam knew Eve, as in made love with Eve.
Cain knew his wife, as in Cain made love with his wife
Adam knew his wife again, made love again with Eve
Judah and Omar went into Tamar, both did NOT make love with, but only had sex with her
King David and Bathsheba went into each other and weren't necessarily in the real sense, making love

Emmanystone:
Why?

I think after my above up there, you're feeling the drift

Emmanystone:
Okay friends, let me humbly present the response i got when i asked the Holy Spirit, Why He said we should abstain from sex during fasting as couples.

He first began by asking me to define FASTING, i gave him the same defination and explanation Ubenedictus gave here. He said, that's how humans view it, but that's not all of it.

He said, Fasting doesn't mean absitnence, it means TO FASTEN SOMETHING TOGETHER. It means to tie two together. It means to melt, to fuse, to bind, to glue, to unite tow together. With a purpose.

He said, when we Fast, we FASTEN our spirits to His. We become one with Him by melting, fusing, and uniting into Him as one, with the intent of drawing from Him, something we need in the physical world. Something which does not yet exist in the material realm and make it exist.

Prayer is calling those things out with our mouths.

Abraham calleth things that be not as though they were, and they became.

He said, Sex or love making is the same thing. When a man have Sex with his wife, or anyone else, they melt, fuse into each other with the intent of drawing from God a New Life which does not exist yet into existence.

He reffered me to Genesis 2:24 which says

And a man shall leave his mother and father and join himself to his wife and they both shall become one . It was at thia point i got a deeper understaning of this verse.

He said, the reason for which He asked a man to stay away from melting into his wife while melting into Him is that, a man can not melt into God and be melting into his wife at the same time..

When a man and his wife agrees for instance to go to Him in Fasting and prayer asking for a Child or anything else, both of them stand as individuals, separately standing before Him. They melts individually into Him, not as a couple. They may have the same motive, but they are different distinct entities possessing single units of Spirits, and it is with this Spirits they Fasten or fuse into Him. Hence, THEY CAN NOT FUSE INTO GOD AND FUSE INTO each OTHER at the same Time.
Here is the reason for abstinence. It has nothing to do with taming the flesh to boost the Spirit.

Sex tie souls or Spirits together. It is a highly Spieitual exerxise. Unbelievers do it too to draw from their master what they needs.

Someone mentioned People of other faiths, we shd remember that if there's fake it's becos there exists the original.

Unbelievers don't Fast, at least not to Jesus.

Salom.
Cc: Sarassin, Butterflylion Muttleylaff, mujtahida, Ubenedictus, Ronpet777

Wow, not bad.
You could have knocked me down with a feather sha

Emmanystone:
It was very tiring after the time with the kids yesterday, from there i went to Church, i got home tired, opened the thread and slept off.
I saw this tbis morning and have included it in the Op
Thanks bro
Oh Wow. They are worlds apart.
Sex is an excerxise perdormed by two consenting parners for the purpose of relieving raging hormones

There are other hormones than those raging ones

Emmanystone:
It can be done with the absence of love between the two consenting partners. It can be done one and never again with the same person.
No commitment between both parties.

Case in Point Genesis 38

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Genesis:38:8

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Genesis:38:9
Onan had SEX with Tamar, enjoy the it, but pulled out and spilled it. There was no love between them hence; his action.
But, love making is an interaction. It's bonding, it is a fusion of souls and spirits of both parties. Love making can take place with sex.

Love making is a heart to heart connection, it's a covenant. It's a melting of two hearts. This ia where giving sacrificially comes it.

Good News Translation Genesis 24:67

Then Isaac brought Rebecca into the tent that his mother Sarah had lived in, and she became his wife. Isaac loved Rebecca, and so he was comforted for the loss of his mother.
pls, no smart mouth should tell me that Isaac just brought Rebecca into his mothers tent but didn't touch her o

Not bad an attempt.
Having sex can be had in both marriage and outside marriage
When had outside marriage, God, who is Love, isn't present and/or involved in it.
Sex, had inside marriage, has God's blessing in it hence, the couple are not just having sex but are making love.

You didn't give names of characters who made love, so I will.
Adam knowing Eve, had sex by and made love
Judah, Onan etcetera had sex with the respective women but weren't making love with them

Emmanystone:
The friend who asked the question quoted from 1Cor 7:6. Hence i have to stay within the confines of that scripture.

... and what does 1 Corinthians 7:6 say?

Emmanystone:
And, No, it wasn't about abstinence, but Paul used that as an opportunity to address an issue which may arise later when partners decides to fast.

Exactly, Paul improved the question he was asked about abstaining from having sexual relations with a woman by giving a response with extra information.
Check 1 Corinthians 7:1 for the question that prompted his reply
It is about if it is good for a man not making love with a woman.

Emmanystone:
This is not about Sex, but sex whiel Fasting and prayers, sir if there other passages which addressed this issue, i will like to know.

Shalom.

I had already advised not read 1 Corinthians 7:5 and/or 1 Corinthians 7:6 in isolation

Emmanystone:
I don't, that's why i asked.

So you dont at all know what the hormones prolactin, oxytocin and melatonin are?
Hmmm, interesting.

Anyway, so you know you asked your question incorrectly.
You asked a non starter question
and that is why I asked you about the difference between having sex and/or making love.

Having sex in marriage can't be carnal
It is having sex outside marriage that is carnal

Emmanystone:
Wow, we have the same mind on this.
This exact my understanding when He asked me to define and explanation FASTING. BUT He gave me and aswere i never expected.

Thanks very much for your thought.

And, the thread is open to all.

Emmanystone:
Pleasure, Pleasure, Pleasure. Sex is Pkeasurable yes, and our father wantd us to enjoy it plenty, but it's not about the pleasure or the abscence of it o.

All these are beside the point
as the original question, put to Paul wasnt even about women not to have sexual relations with a man but was the other way round

Reiterating 1 Corinthians 7 and the chapter 6 before it wasnt even about sexual abstinence because of fasting and prayer
Sexual abstinence for sake of fasting and prayer, was thought out by Paul, in response to the Corinthians asking him about whether it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman
Paul improved the question, by answering other areas of intimacy with a woman

Reading 1 Corinthians:7:5 in isolation, and trying to make a doctrine out of it, is just being careless

What is the answer He gave you?

Emmanystone:
The bolded .

If sex in marriage is not Carnal why shouldn't you have it during fasting, not just when you are praying.
Prayer is done always, but fasting is not. Why abstain from sex during fasting?

Do you at all know what prolactin, oxytocin and melatonin are?
If yes, explain what they do, what their effect is on men after having sex and/or making love
Imagine it on the man's fasting and praying pre-plan

Emmanystone:
I forgot to.place it in the Op, but itst there now.

After how many reminders. I lost count

Emmanystone:
Really?
Mehn, that guy been dey scatter my head wen i come here newly. Him and Viaro

Pls Nuclearboy, speak up.

He wont
He comes in here in stealth mode

Ishilove:
Was Paul under the influence of the holy spirit when he said exhorted that we should abstain from sex while fasting?
The act of fasting is the denial of that which gives pleasure and sustenance to oneself. Self denial and sacrifice.
Why in God's name is sex within marriage carnal?

US Christians just love chasing shadows where there are none

Emmanystone:
Yes, Paul spoke the mind of God when he said we shd abstain from sex during fasting and prayer. There's a very good reason for that.

That is besides the point
as the original question, put to Paul wasnt even about women not to have sexual relations with a man but was the other way round