Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
AnaAmmar1 reacted to hasanhh in Obelisks and Saudi Arabia
There are also "Cleopatra's Needles" -although they are 18th Dynasty. One in Central Park, NYC and the other in Westminster. There is also a "Third" Needle from Ramses ll reign re-erected at Place de la Concorde in Paris.
They are called "needles" for etiquette/politeness. They are actually phalli.
That the Saudi's replaced Satanic Phallic symbols with walls l guess is OK.
AnaAmmar1 reacted to Kilij in Why identity politics is a cancer
Idpol(Identity Politics) without intersectonality(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality) is completely worthless garbage. The Western Powers support parts of(especially individualistic and materialistic) Idpol as a sort of classic "Divide and Conquer" strategy to preserve the liberal status quo. They will tolerate, or even outright support, some groups who are least likely to be radical and may support the Liberal regime in return, this especially applies to the groups @Qa'im mentions who would end up supporting capitalism(economic liberalism) due to this social liberalism. That way those groups do not work together with other groups to form an anti-status_quo collective movement, infact, they may outright begin to side with the state against the poor and people of colour. It's all about division of the working class and minorities, they've been playing this game long and know how to keep us divided and morally ignorant, unable to fight together for universal justice and the better future we may only dream of now.
We Humans are not these identities, we are our ideals and conduct, manifest into a body.
AnaAmmar1 reacted to LeftCoastMom in Overcoming Destructive Desires
We Can debate this or not as you please.
I just think the good folks at Shia Chat should know some actual theological facts instead of opinions.
I have provided you with clear doctrine regarding the goodness of licit sex in the theology of the Church.
What some Church folks in history did / said is not doctrine.
(Had you ever taken any course in theology you would know this.)
The Church can reject parts of their thinking, even if they are saints.
Most of your " info" deals with the clergy, not the laity. Clerical celibacy does not apply to unordained people.
Again....What Christian pastor ever told you that married sex was evil?
As well, where did you take Church History?
Had you taken it, you would have known that Elvira was not an Ecumenical Council ( plus your example of abstinence from sex before a ceremony was a tradition found even in the Jewish faith for priests and did not mean permanent withdrawal...don't Muslims abstain from sex before certain events?) but a regional one of uncertain date and patronage ( a few bishops and presbyters of a single area do not constitute an authoritative ecumenical council) and the ideas regarding permanent clerical celibacy from it were actually REJECTED at Nicea. The arguments against Elvira were lead by the Egyptian bishop Paphnutius.
"Often the mind of a deliberative assembly is as clearly shown by the propositions it rejects as by those it adopts, and it would seem that thisdoctrine is of application in the case of the asserted attempt at this Council to pass a decree forbidding the priesthood to live in the use of marriage. This attempt is said to have failed. The particulars are as follows:
Socrates, Sozomen, and Gelasius affirm that the Synod of Nicaea, as well as that of Elvira (can. 33), desired to pass a law respecting celibacy. This law was to forbid all bishops, priests and deacons (Sozomen adds subdeacons), who were married at the time of their ordination, to continue to live with their wives. But, say these historians, the law was opposed openly and decidedly by Paphnutius, bishop of a city of the Upper Thebais in Egypt, a man of a high reputation, who had lost an eye during the persecution under Maximian. He was also, celebrated for his miracles, and was held in so great respect by the Emperor, that the latter often kissed the empty socket of the lost eye. Paphnutius declared with a loud voice, "that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honourable and undefiled; that the Church ought not to be injured by an extreme severity, for all could not live in absolute continency: in this way (by not prohibiting married intercourse) the virtue of the wife would be much more certainly preserved (viz the wife of a clergyman, because she might find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from her married intercourse). The intercourse of a man with his lawful wife may also be a chaste intercourse. It would therefore be sufficient, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being married were prohibited from marrying afterwards; but those clergymen who had been married only once as laymen, were not to be separated from their wives (Gelasius adds, or being only a reader or cantor)." This discourse of Paphnutius made so much the more impression, because he had never lived in matrimony himself, and had had no conjugal intercourse.Paphnutius, indeed, had been brought up in a monastery, and his great purity of manners had rendered him especially celebrated.Therefore the Council took the serious words of the Egyptian bishop into consideration, stopped all discussion upon the law, and left to each cleric the responsibility of deciding the point as he would."
The issue of clerical celibacy in the West was not decided, as a matter of fact, until the Second Lateran Council in 1139.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches never accepted clerical celibacy and ordain married men ( odd you should not know about this since they live cheek by jowl with Muslims in the Middle East ) and married priests are the rule there. As well, today in the Western ( Latin) Church there is the Permanent Diaconate in which married men are ordained into the office. The celebrant at my own wedding was a married man.
Lol. Here are some "quick facts" you decided to leave out of the page you cut and pasted from...or the one that you copied and pasted from copied and pasted from ( as much as I am sympathetic to " FutureChurch" on many issues, their research is sometimes sloppy ...as on Nicea... And they should have known better)
First Century Peter, the first pope, and the apostles that Jesus chose were, for the most part, married men. ( LCM's note...we even had Popes who fathered other Popes...like Hormisdas being dad to Silverius...well after Nicea)
Second and Third Century Age of Gnosticism: ( LCM's note....declared a heresy) light and spirit are good, darkness and material things are evil. A person cannot be married and be perfect. However, most priests were married.
580-Pope Pelagius II: his policy was not to bother married priests as long as they did not hand over church property to wives or children.
Seventh Century France: documents show that the majority of priest were married.
Eighth Century St. Boniface reported to the pope that in Germany almost no bishop or priest was celibate.
Ninth Century St. Ulrich, a holy bishop, argued from scripture and common sense that the only way to purify the church from the worst excesses of celibacy was to permit priests to marry.
Eleventh Century 1045-
Benedict IX dispensed himself from celibacy and resigned in order to marry.
Fifteenth Century Transition; 50% of priests are married and accepted by the people.
Why do I Bother with this?
Simple...when I went to the library looking for a book on Shia Islam and only found one by a Sunni who was extremely dismissive and was fostering what I suspected was misinformation by cherry-picking bits of your faith he didn't like ...my own training in Compartive Religions ( did you ever take that course either? Seems to me you were confused a while back about jewish halakhic conversion customs ) kicked in and I decided it was bovine exhaust and came here to get answers from the horses mouth, so to speak.
I'd kinda like to be shown the same respect.
We Christians like sex.
We like it a lot.
We are told by our Churches to have fun in our marriage beds and we do.
There is nothing evil about it.
Hope this helps.
AnaAmmar1 reacted to Qa'im in Islam and Feminism
I'm not saying it's impossible, but Ibrahim's wife's miracle is mentioned in the Quran, while I have not seen a source that says that Fatima was born from a post-menopausal woman. Either way, this is not relevant to this thread. I said Khadija was married before the Prophet, to show that she did indeed marry when she was "young", but you decided to interject to make a dubious, off-topic point about her age. You need to stop arguing just for the sake of arguing, especially when you have no sources and no clear end goal. Surra was making a different point, there's no need to jive. This is not the first time you do this and it needs to stop.
AnaAmmar1 reacted to Bakir in Islam and Feminism
The thing is that you can't impose that premise on everybody, much less in an intellectual debate. It serves no academic purpose, just a critique that will only be supported by those who think like you and will bring nothing to those who don't. At times it can even feel as some sort of pride (in the negative sense of the word).
We don't have to share such critiques and harmful generalizations to say we don't agree to feminist ideas and we hold to islamic values. To think like this, at least for me, demonstrates the opposite.
I guess it may just be me and my inherent intolerance to... not sure how to describe it... this.
Anyway, I have nothing more to say here.
AnaAmmar1 reacted to Gaius I. Caesar in Islam and Feminism
Don't be condescending, sis. You know nothing of Enigma's life and you know being condescending is bad akhlaq. If you don't know what you did, reread what you wrote or ask. Just saying, I am not trying to lecture. I'm just trying to remind you, that's all.