₦airaland Forum

Emmanystone:
Meaning, if i want to fast all by myself without my husband being part of it, we ought to agree to abstain for the number of days i decide to fast, but if he refuses (meaning, he would demand for his right), then no fasting for me.

That passage doesn't say we can agree to have sex while we fast. What sense will it make? Ordinarily, we don't need to discuss if we shd or shd not have sex, why shd we discuss it during fasting if we are free to do it?

Should we agree that, during fasting we shd do only at nights or in the morning before heading out? Questiin is, how were we doing it before?

Paul was focussed on sexual immorality to begin with and he wanted this immorality not to encroach into a married couples home due to abstinence in the name of spirikoko bro or sis.

This was why he said, THEY SHOULD ABSTAIN FOR A TIME and then come together again. He was not talking about fasting and prayer being done apart from sex. He was trying to expand the foundation about immorality he laid from chapter 6.

Both husband and wife should agree on how they go about it and stick with this agreement in order to avoid sexual immorality.

If you wish to fast and abstain and your husband wants sex, then you give it to him and you can still fast while at it too. Paul simply wished EVERYONE WAS CELIBATE LIKE HIM because it is hard to totally please God as we want. However sex in marriage is a good thing even while fasting because lengthy abstinence can only bring sin which he called sexual immorality and this he stated in chapter 6 when he talked-about joining our bodies to a harlot (prostitute).

This shows you that prostitution is a very old trade and women have always been available to satisfy men outside wedlock and also women can also stray.

Cool down and carefully read those scriptures.

Emmanystone:
Meaning, if i want to fast all by myself without my husband being part of it, we ought to agree to abstain for the number of days i decide to fast, but if he refuses (meaning, he would demand for his right), then no fasting for me.

That passage doesn't say we can agree to have sex while we fast. What sense will it make? Ordinarily, we don't need to discuss if we shd or shd not have sex, why shd we discuss it during fasting if we are free to do it?

Should we agree that, during fasting we shd do only at nights or in the morning before heading out? Questiin is, how were we doing it before?

Exactly! Why discuss it if you can do it freely. However in those rare occasions when you wish to abstain for a while then discuss it and agree on length of abstinence in order to avoid immorality.

It is not a command. It is a concession.

MizMyColi:
Ehn.
We are saying same same nau.

All I was trying to say in that mischief post is that everything should not always be viewed with this lens of spirikoko, you get? I think that there's some physical aspect to sex. In fact, it is even the physical that helps us connect to the spiritual.

But seriously, maybe if I practice tantra, then I can be concerned about the spirituality of sex.

As for me, na the unspeakable enjoyment na him my brain dey reason. Wait, sometimes, it's like the brain is turned off.

Gosh.

Let me coman go to school abeg.

@ bolded. Yes, our Father in Heaven loves and cares for us. He daily loads us with benefits even sexual enjoyment.

See, if the enjoyment is not that hypped, trust me, no one will want the body of another touching and scrubbing against theirs every now and then.

Some people sweat profusely during sex. Some smell. What about mouths and armtpit odours? Yet, this has to be done. They have to be endured for the sake of the stars.
Without that ecstasy, you wouldn't do it repeatedly to have the number of kids that will populate a community.

God is Wise.

Sarassin:
Allegiance and worship of a female deity did not alter the patriarchal nature of first century Roman Empire and lest we forget even the worship of Asherah persisted in the Jerusalem Temple well into the First century, the Jews were no less patriarchal. In any event, early church members were mainly Greek speaking Jews in diaspora.

It was not disorderliness that lead to Paul commanding women to keep shtum in Church, this command was drawn from prevailing societal attitudes of the day, as you may or may not know amongst other things a Jewish woman may not address another man in public unless she was with her husband or her father. Early Christian writings tell us that women were considered emotional, unreasonable and given to flights of fancy that made them unsuitable for elevated positions. The fact that women received the Holy ghost or Spirit is rather irrelevant, we are talking about societal norms and not spiritual largesse.

The disorderliness that you refer to was more about sundry issues within the church, for instance in one Church (I cannot remember which one at the moment) fights would break out at feast times because by the time working church members arrived at church after work, those who were jobless and sitting around in the church all day would have feasted and drank heavily leaving those who actually went out to work with nothing to eat, it was such sundry issues like these that Paul dealt with.

Okay Mia Caro.

butterflyl1on:
Exactly! Why discuss it if you can do it freely. However in those rare occasions when you wish to abstain for a while then discuss it and agree on length of abstinence in order to avoid immorality.

It is not a command. It is a concession.

Gbam @ the bolded. This has been my bone of contention all along. Yes for the sake of immorality, don't stay off sex for a long time or without first discussing with your spouse how long the break shd be.

My query is in the vicinity of 'abstinence'.

Why do we or shd we abstian when fasting?

My friends opines that, the reason we abstain during fasting is so that we may present ourselves holy before God, meaning the act of sex is itself an unholy act. I disagreed with her on that. Sex is completely holy. We as humans may have perverted sex, asin, added certain embellishments that are carnal doesn't make sex intrinsically carnal.

Then her question. 'if sex is an holy act, why do we abstain from it during fasting?'

Emmanystone:
The World has sown the Whirlwind, in rebellion, hence, the consequences. No one has the right to complain at all, for even here right now, men still reject a gentle kind saviour who did no wrong. Who lived all His life helping the poor. Why did He do to be hated so?
Yet, when there's calamity, the blame is heaped on him.

With regards to the Adam you mentioned, here...
1Cor 15:21-22
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Christ is here with a new life, why remain dead in Adam, except it's a deliberate will choice(?).

How do people even reason sef?
A fiction created in a book you just quoted to proof a point. The Jehovah whom you just concurred with can be kown only from that fictional book.
Well, here is what is writen in the fictiinal book which you quoted to exonerate yourself;
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Romans:3:10
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Romans:3:11
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Romans:3:12

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Romans:3:13
Just like, 1Cor 15:21-22 says, Adam brought death, but Christ has brought Life. What you choose is what you'll have. Don't for a day think you can escape. lol.


Yes, He rules on decrees, what can you do about it? If you don't like it, you can take a hike. This is His earth. And He reigns supreme over His territory.

He does as He pleases, only as He pleases. If you have what it takes, wait, very soon you shall die, then can stand before Him and wag your little finger on His face demanding explanations, if you can access His presence.

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

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

butterflyl1on:
Paul was focussed on sexual immorality to begin with and he wanted this immorality not to encroach into a married couples home due to abstinence in the name of spirikoko bro or sis.

This was why he said, THEY SHOULD ABSTAIN FOR A TIME and then come together again. He was not talking about fasting and prayer being done apart from sex. He was trying to expand the foundation about immorality he laid from chapter 6.

Both husband and wife should agree on how they go about it and stick with this agreement in order to avoid sexual immorality.

If you wish to fast and abstain and your husband wants sex, then you give it to him and you can still fast while at it too. Paul simply wished EVERYONE WAS CELIBATE LIKE HIM because it is hard to totally please God as we want. However sex in marriage is a good thing even while fasting because lengthy abstinence can only bring sin which he called sexual immorality and this he stated in chapter 6 when he talked-about joining our bodies to a harlot (prostitute).

This shows you that prostitution is a very old trade and women have always been available to satisfy men outside wedlock and also women can also stray.

Cool down and carefully read those scriptures.

If they can have sex while fasting, then there's no need of any understanding between them.

The word 'abstinence' shouldn't have even need come in there if it's okay to fast and do it.

This Word (Abstinence) will make sense only if it is absolute. Why mention it if when am fasting and my husband feels like it he can have it? The agreement involves something like this;

Husband: This 3weeks fasting that our church has declared, hmmm, e get as e go be o. I no sure say i go fit stay till dey end o. You know, man must wack.

Wife: What do you suggest we do?

Husband: Let's do it for 1 week. I can manage 1week.

Wife: But sweetheart, we really need this spiritual exercise. You know, we hardly fast and our prayer life is not that strong. Let's try two weeks.

Husband: 2 weeks? Mbanunununu. E no go work. E get as e go be sef, i go bring am down to 3days.

Wife: No Honey, don't. I agree for the 1 week. Let's do it for 1week.

Husband: Good, so start counting.

This is what i understand it to mean. If i can have sex mixed with fasting, then let's not even mention abstinence.

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

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.

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

Does your God have a mouth?

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

Baby, Crossing Swords is not what i do. I am a lover not a fighter. We shall just have a discussion. Maybe then i can let you in on some things you missed in your Christian days.

Guess what? Love is flowing in my heart for you.

Sarassin:
Of course you're invited, anywhere I go, you go...simples

***Heaves a sigh of relief***

My heart is a lump of suger now

OkCornel:
How can sex in marriage be carnal when God told man to be fruitful and multiply?

Abi are you all thinking God is Spiritual but gives carnal instructions?

Welcome brother. Search me ooo.

Emmanystone:
Baby, Crossing Swords is not what i do. I am a lover not a fighter. We shall just have a discussion. Maybe then i can let you in on some things you missed in your Christian days.

Guess what? Love is flowing in my heart for you.

Crossing swords - just a metaphor. Meant no negative thing.

Baby? Hmmmmm I hope I'm not discussing with some Christian homo. They exists oo, Christian homo

You assume too much as regards my Christian days, too much Bro. You even doubted I was ever truly a Christian but that's lame cos that's what most Christians say to guys who jettison the Faith: 'you were never truly born again' 'you were never truly a Christian' 'you missed out something' etc.

Ohhhhhh please, those questions are like asking a divorcee 'were you ever married'?

. 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.

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

Does your God have a mouth?[/quote]

Mujtahida:
You say so based on what is written in the book.

Yes, based on what is written in That Book. That is because that is Earth's manual. Every manufacturer leaves a manual for others to best use his product.

Mujtahida:
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

Pls give me the go ahead to open a thread for the contradictions, lies, absurdities, and historical untruths in the Bible. And, promise to stay through while we trash these issues out.

You present them, i treat them.

I'm waiting to hear you say 'Go ahead'.
[quote author=Mujtahida post=65434880][quote author=Mujtahida post=65434880]

Emmanystone:
. 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.

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

Does your God have a mouth?

You say so based on what is written in the book.
Yes, based on what is written in That Book. That is because that is Earth's manual. Every manufacturer leaves a manual for others to best use his product.

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
Pls give me the go ahead to open a thread for the contradictions, lies, absurdities, and historical untruths in the Bible. And, promise to stay through while we trash these issues out.

You present them, i treat them.

I'm waiting to hear you say 'Go ahead'.

Hahahaha hahahaha @earth's manual. You think your own scriptures is the earth's manual.Kai the believing brain is something else.
Go ahead

LoJ:
Ahaha. Okay I will pay for the ladies if and only if Sarassin comes along. Ohh perhaps he could be fasting then

No way...Sarassin will have to take a day off.

Mujtahida:
Crossing swords - just a metaphor. Meant no negative thing.

I know that.

Mujtahida:
Baby? Hmmmmm I hope I'm not discussing with some Christian homo. They exists oo, Christian homo

Homo ke? Egba mi o. No sir. Am a chic. A hot Christian chic . And, Homosexuality gives me the creeps. Urghhhh. Wait!!, you haven't been reading all the posts here abi? If you have, you' d see folks addressing me as Ma'am and sis.lol

Mujtahida:
You assume too much as regards my Christian days, too much Bro. You even doubted I was ever truly a Christian but that's lame cos that's what most Christians say to guys who jettison the Faith: 'you were never truly born again' 'you were never truly a Christian' 'you missed out something' etc.

That is based on your tone. You don't seem to know tje God you claimed to have served for years. I wish we can talk about your relationship with Him. His methods of dealings with you, because He deals with us differently. How you got to the point where you discovered He didn't exist anyway. But, this will never happen as all those who jettison the faith runs far away from this.

So many of you here makes that claim, but when asked to have a discussion about it, NEPA takes light.

Mujtahida:
Ohhhhhh please, those questions are like asking a divorcee 'were you ever married'?

Ooooooh pls, can you agree to a discussion about how you knew in the first instance that He was God before discovering that is not?


[quote author=Mujtahida post=65435489]

Mujtahida:
Hahahaha hahahaha @earth's manual. You think your own scriptures is the earth's manual.Kai the believing brain is something else.
Go ahead

Okay sir.

Emmanystone:
Gbam @ the bolded. This has been my bone of contention all along. Yes for the sake of immorality, don't stay off sex for a long time or without first discussing with your spouse how long the break shd be.

My query is in the vicinity of 'abstinence'.

Why do we or shd we abstian when fasting?

My friends opines that, the reason we abstain during fasting is so that we may present ourselves holy before God, meaning the act of sex is itself an unholy act. I disagreed with her on that. Sex is completely holy. We as humans may have perverted sex, asin, added certain embellishments that are carnal doesn't make sex intrinsically carnal.

Then her question. 'if sex is an holy act, why do we abstain from it during fasting?'

I don't know how to tell you this again. ABSTAINING FROM SEX AS A MARRIED COUPLE DURING FASTING AND PRAYER IS A THING OF CHOICE AND NOT A COMMAND and this was why Paul said in verse 6 immediately after the comment on abstinence that "THIS I SAY AS A CONCESSION / PERMISSION AND NOT A COMMAND.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

butterflyl1on:
I don't know how to tell you this again. ABSTAINING FROM SEX AS A MARRIED COUPLE DURING FASTING AND PRAYER IS A THING OF CHOICE AND NOT A COMMAND and this was why Paul said in verse 6 immediately after the comment on abstinence that "THIS I SAY AS A CONCESSION / PERMISSION AND NOT A COMMAND.

Okay sir. So i can fast and have sex as long as my husband agrees abi?

Mujtahida:
Hahahaha hahahaha @earth's manual. You think your own scriptures is the earth's manual.Kai the believing brain is something else.
Go ahead

You can try presenting these other scriptures let check them out and see which talks about how the land, sea, animals and other humans regareless of whether they believe your God or not, shd be treated. With this we will know if it's Earth's manual or not.

Me and you get plenty to talk about o.

Emmanystone:
Okay sir. So i can fast and have sex as long as my husband agrees abi?

You can fast and have sex as long as you and your husband are in harmony of agreement about it. I like the way King James version said it. It used the term DEFRAUD. This means taking something that isn't yours. The wife has no authority over her body and neither does the husband have authority over his own body.

Their bodies belong to each other so when the wife needs sex from her husband even while he is fasting then he should give it to her because HIS BODY IS HER RIGHT and vice versa.

Go ahead and frolic with your husband in the harmony of agreement on your matrimonial bed even while fasting and see what harmony of body and soul in marriage would achieve. There are no boundaries to it.

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.

MuttleyLaff:
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

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". 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.

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.

butterflyl1on:
Sarassins 3rd eye did not see what needed to be seen in that scripture

Ha Ha Ha !

OkCornel:
In all the letters Paul wrote to the various churches...did he tell all of the ladies in all these churches to keep shut?

Or was he addressing a specific controversy brewing in a particular church (Corinthians I think) which led him to include it in one of the epistles to that church?

I should ask you that question. Paul apparently addresses specific issues by laying down general rules about the conduct of women in churches.

Sarassin:
I should ask you that question. Paul apparently addresses specific issues by laying down general rules about the conduct of women in churches.

Please mention all the churches Paul instructed their women to keep shut...

Bear in mind his letters were addressed to specific churches...

OkCornel:
Please mention all the churches Paul instructed their women to keep shut...

Bear in mind his letters were addressed to specific churches...

Kindly read the reply I gave to MuttleyLaff 3 or 4 posts back, the answer to your question is contained there.

Sarassin:
Kindly read the reply I gave to MuttleyLaff 3 or 4 posts back, the answer to your question is contained there.

Did you consider the issues Paul was trying to address in the Corinthian church and also in his letter to Timothy?

Do you think these issues applies to every other church?

Have you bothered to ask why Paul did not repeat this in every other epistle of his?

Or are there other epistles you are aware of? Please share them...

OkCornel:
Did you consider the issues Paul was trying to address in the Corinthian church and also in his letter to Timothy?

Do you think these issues applies to every other church?

Have you bothered to ask why Paul did not repeat this in every other epistle of his?

Or are there other epistles you are aware of? Please share them...

But you miss the big picture. You see sir, you cannot have it both ways. Either Christianity accepts that Paul’s letters serve as the ecclesiastical foundations of Christianity wherein his directives are universally applied, or they do not. Since Paul’s letters are now considered scripture and its structures are universally accepted then there can be no derogation or cherry-picking of doctrine to suit tastes.

Therefore the idea that you and others have floated that Paul’s comments were localised to specific churches has no merit, it is “all for one” and “one for all” Paul himself alluded as much in his opening comments in the verse in Corinthians that I highlighted.

Sarassin:
But you miss the big picture. You see sir, you cannot have it both ways. Either Christianity accepts that Paul’s letters serve as the ecclesiastical foundations of Christianity wherein his directives are universally applied, or they do not. Since Paul’s letters are now considered scripture and its structures are universally accepted then there can be no derogation or cherry-picking of doctrine to suit tastes.

Therefore the idea that you and others have floated that Paul’s comments were localised to specific churches has no merit, it is “all for one” and “one for all” Paul himself alluded as much in his opening comments in the verse in Corinthians that I highlighted.

I guess you are missing the big picture by applying to specific circumstances to stand for solution to generic issues...

I ask again, why didn't Paul repeat this in all of his letters to the various churches he wrote to? why only the Corinthians and Timothy?

Or do you understand the mind of Paul better than Paul himself? or are you in a better position to tell us what was going on in Paul's mind and the circumstances that led him to writing such to Corinthian church and to Timothy?



Once again, you missed another point by thinking the letters of Paul serves as the foundation for Christianity. What about the teachings of Jesus?

NO JESUS...NO PAUL... Don't put the cart before the horse....

Cheers

Sarassin:
But you miss the big picture. You see sir, you cannot have it both ways. Either Christianity accepts that Paul’s letters serve as the ecclesiastical foundations of Christianity wherein his directives are universally applied, or they do not. Since Paul’s letters are now considered scripture and its structures are universally accepted then there can be no derogation or cherry-picking of doctrine to suit tastes.

Therefore the idea that you and others have floated that Paul’s comments were localised to specific churches has no merit, it is “all for one” and “one for all” Paul himself alluded as much in his opening comments in the verse in Corinthians that I highlighted.

Going by the bolded, why didn't Paul write a single letter to all the churches? Why then did he write specific letters to the various churches and to certain people?