Tempting eyes and Muslim men !!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sam_777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muslims who do know Christ and what the Church teaches are not ignorant and the Church becomes the only way of salvation for them. You actually thought this involved all Muslims?
No of course not. I read the Catechism, but was pointing out that your bald statement is not in line with Church teaching. Not all Catholics are assured of heaven also. Of course there are conditions, regardiing human beings. There is no one size fits all, including condemnation of another faith.
And as Sam points out. Only God is able to judge individual souls of whatever faith.
 
I thinks it’s better to keep who goes and who doesn’t go to paradise to the LORD Himself, we can just warn them of purgatory which is not a good place to stay…
So what would you say to Pope Innocent III? “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”

Or what of Pope Boniface VIII? “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Or Pope Eugene IV? “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Note, all quotes were of the Extraordinary Magisterium and required to believe to profess to all.
 
Trevor that is indeed a mystery.
Perhaps the mystery can be explained in this way, from Jesus’ own promise:

12 ‘I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." John 16

In these word Jesus tell us that He hasn’t shared all the truth yet.
He did not say that when the Spirit comes, that He will reveal all truth, but He says “guide you into all truth” which is a process, a process He doesn’t give a specific time.
But He does say that it will be truth that comes from Him, from the Father.

Anyway I’ll leave you gently with those thoughts.

God bless you.🙂
 
Not a naked bottom - how would you feel if, walking down a street,someone reached out to give a quick squeeze or caress to your posterior? It’s no accident. It’s disrespectful and intrusive. Can you seriously not understand that? If the climate were the real issue, the men’s faces would also be covered, and the women could wear a heat-reflecting white as well.
I understand that. My point being that when touch of any bottom is forbidden for any male regarding any bottom except for male’s wife (by state law), that in itself does not mean that it would be impossible for such to happen by intention or by accident.
Regarding climate, I didn’t write so, but I meant head (to toe) cover, not face cover - e.g. (possibility of) hair drying out in direct sunlight, albeit in e.g. a sand storm I would certainly recommend face cover as well. As for face covers in particular, not much of a difference between sun-glasses and veil (albeit glasses have to “hang” on ears) - the issue here being about such being mandatory (of having or not having to wear such), and technically states usually have laws regarding such, e.g. drivers without “full sight” having to wear prescribed glasses, which is more or less all part of “health and safety” reasons.
As for the particular white clothing and black clothing, the topic is broader than what mentioned here. The issue of skin-temperature under a layer of air and a layer of black clothing in sunlight being one thing, another thing being that white clothing and black clothing also has to do with environment in other aspects, …
 
And the impracticality of it. During a visit of Malaysia in mid-September, my friend and I met other tourists from the Middle East. The women were dressed very modestly, of course. Those from Saudi Arabia wore full black clothes, as a Hindu taxi driver related to us. I thought it must have been unbearably hot for the women without air-conditioning, everything covered but the eyes, like the first picture provided by the OP. But I did marvel at the beautiful detail of their long dresses and veil, e.g., bead accents, a bit of appliqué or lace here and there, mostly black as well.

Tired of Hainanese food for days in a row, we went for McDonald’s hamburger inside a huge mall in Kuala Lumpur one time. A young Saudi couple with their child took the table next to us, the woman dressed in the fashion as described. Her husband wore comfortable long shorts and light colored shirt as did the little boy. They ordered hamburgers and fries.

You can just imagine the repeated motions the woman had to do with each bite of the burger and fries. She kept her facial veil, which she had to lift each time with one hand and putting the food in her mouth with the other! The man and their son looked like they enjoyed their food, unencumbered, of course.
,
I think restricting women and making them uncomfortable is one of the main purposes of such rules frankly.
 
Only God forgives sin.

Only God can judge man and his innermost heart.

Christ offered us the Eucharist that brings us into eternal life…not some far off time…but beginning now. There is baptism of desire…I think of Muslims who know the truth, but cannot participate in the life of Christ, or the infants and children and those who die living by the golden rule…baptism of the blood…
 
Trevor that is indeed a mystery.
Perhaps the mystery can be explained in this way, from Jesus’ own promise:

12 ‘I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." John 16

In these word Jesus tell us that He hasn’t shared all the truth yet.
He did not say that when the Spirit comes, that He will reveal all truth, but He says “guide you into all truth” which is a process, a process He doesn’t give a specific time.
But He does say that it will be truth that comes from Him, from the Father.

Anyway I’ll leave you gently with those thoughts.

God bless you.🙂
Mystery? No mystery here when proper hermeneutics is practiced.

I do not understand your application of the passages that refer to the Holy Spirit who descended upon the Church at Pentecost and ever since then guides her in all truth. This actually aids my argument for the Extraordinary Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit in decrees. Seems the Holy Spirit has directed the councils in past to proclaim then and ever today that there is no salvation outside the Church as quoted. I agree with the Holy Father, this is “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture.” True interpretation of these paragraphs from the catechism that cause confusion can only be rectified by the light of the past decrees and Sacred Scripture to settle any ambiguity. Though, I have a feeling a new council will form to settle these sorts of disputes and misinterpretations of Vatican II.
 
They don’t go… that’s why I thought you were joking. As far as objections to their salvation, I stand with the Church.
Are they invincibly ignorant of the truth? No.
How do you know? do you know the 1 bilion muslims?
Are they baptized? No.
What is baptism for you?
Do they partake of the Eucharist? No.
An infant who is chirstian never received Eucharist.
Do they reject Christ? Yes.
???Christ for them is a Prophet !!!
Do they reject His Church? Yes.
What is the Church for you?
Are they stained with moral sin? Yes.
How do you know? Do you have a moral-sin-meter?

Ergo, nothing
they are not saved unless they repent, accept Christ and His Bride (the Church) and partake of the Sacraments.
 
The eyes are the window of the soul…and the clothing some Muslim women must wear is in direct reflection of the values of the men themselves…
 
How do you know?

Qur’an 5:66


Qur’an 4:171

So here we have the case they know of Christ, they know of Christians, they know of the Gospel, and they know of dogmas such as “Trinity”. One would be bound by moral obligation to investigate this matter to discern the truth for themselves. This at least is the fringe territory of invincible ignorance, if not the beginning of vincible ignorance. But, I will admit this only pertains to those that have actually read the Qur’an, I’m sure they have just as a hard of time getting people to read as we do. To those that have read, they certainly know more of the matter then the natives of the Americas, prior to the coming of missionaries, who were truly invincibly ignorant. Though in certain circumstances where the ability to obtain such knowledge is not immediate to investigate the truth, they are consider invincibly ignorant.
What is baptism for you?
Necessary for salvation.

CCC: 1257

Missionaries proclaim the Gospel everywhere, and to those Muslims that have been proclaimed to and have had the possibility to ask for this sacrament, they will not obtain salvation until baptized. This does not apply to Muslims that have not heard the Gospel, but does not automatically grant them access to heaven as radical conditions still apply.
An infant who is chirstian never received Eucharist.
(ST III, 73, 3)

On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): “Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ.”

I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (1, Objection 2) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Peter 3:20-21. And it has been said above (Question 68, Article 2), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (Question 68, Article 2). Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (Question 63, Article 6): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.
???Christ for them is a Prophet !!!
And Hinduist call Jesus an avatar of Vishnu, what’s your point?
What is the Church for you?
For me? Necessary for salvation. For others, also necessary for salvation as the Extraordinary Magisterium has spoken as such and is not up for debate. Though, there are people that can be saved outside the Church, radical conditions still apply.
How do you know? Do you have a moral-sin-meter?
No need to be sarcastic, we’re having an interesting debate as brotherly Catholics.

“All have sinned”. Now this could mean venial and/or mortal, but can we at least agree the amount of people that have no mortal sin on their soul is extremely limited?

I do not deny a Muslim can obtain salvation, but your first post came off as if all Muslims were saved because of their beliefs. What I will say is that in order for them to be granted salvation, it is extremely conditional as they must be 100% invincibly ignorant of the truth through absolute no fault of their own, seek God with a sincere heart (just because one is a Muslim, doesn’t mean they fulfill this condition), and “try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience” or in other words, lead a moral life according to the law written in the heart (not all do this). A very conditional circumstance for them.
 
The opposite world of Islam:

Agencies Question Need for Iran’s Family Protection Bill
By Amy Kellogg

Published November 29, 2011


The Iranian government calls it the Family Protection Bill, but activists call it the “Anti-Family Protection Bill.”

It would give men the right to take a second wife without the permission of the first, and it would enshrine a man’s right to have an unlimited number of temporary marriages, which can last from 10 minutes to 99 years. Those arrangements come from Shariah law and have always existed in Iran, but the Family Protection Bill would make them official.

Two groups – the International Coalition Against Violence in Iran, and the Association of Iranian Researchers – arranged a press conference in London last week to raise awareness of the issue. Amid the upheaval in Iran right now – the hardship associated with sanctions, and the political strife – they question why such a law, which has been winding its way through Iran’s government for several years, even needs to be on the table.

Women opposed to the articles in the bill that pertain to polygamy went on a brave and creative odyssey more than a year ago to confront it, traveling around Iran to talk to women whose lives have been adversely affected by their husbands taking second wives.

The women wrote their stories on pieces of cloth; if they were illiterate, they had someone else write them down. Then they sewed the pieces together into a quilt.

The quilt is still in Iran, but a digital image was smuggled out.

“Most of the stories are from around Iran, not from Tehran. They are sad stories,” said Rouhi Shafii of the International Coalition Against Violence in Iran.

Here is a translation of one of the stories:

“A few years after my marriage, my husband started telling me, jokingly, that I looked like an old woman. I was five years younger than he. He began beating me and broke my hands several times. When he talked of taking up another wife, I took it as a joke. He wouldn’t do that, I thought. We have two children. But one day he married a young girl and wanted to get a two story building to bring his bride to live with us. I made him swear on the Koran not to do that, and he took his child bride elsewhere. He forgot about us and spent all his earning enjoying his bride. I was providing for the children by working at people’s homes or hairdressing salons. My younger son says: ‘when I grow up, I will kill my dad.’”

A group of women activists also gathered 15,000 signatures from women opposed to the law — signatures complete with their addresses. The activists brought the signatures and the quilt to Parliament last year, to try to stop the legalization of the polygamy articles as part of the new law. Parliament accepted the signatures, but would not take the quilt.

“It was a very brave act they did last year, in the middle of demonstrations and detentions,” Shafii told Fox News.

Many of the women involved in creating the quilt are out of Iran right now, but they were afraid to appear at the press conference, fearing the regime would make life hard for their families back home.

To many Iranian women, temporary marriage is tantamount to legalized prostitution. But the women’s opposition to the bill is not unanimous. Many female Members of Parliament are as conservative as the men, and they support the legislation.

At this point, the two articles of the bill that deal with polygamy are on hold, but they have not been canceled out of the bill. Shafii believes activism has kept those bills from being passed so far.
 
The eyes are the window of the soul…and the clothing some Muslim women must wear is in direct reflection of the values of the men themselves…
Yes, this degrades women in a way that even the nastiest pornography cannot.

Porn may objectify women but at least it treats them as desirable/good things.
This kind of Sharia law treats women like evil/shameful things that must be hidden from the sight of people (i.e. men).
 
The opposite world of Islam:

Agencies Question Need for Iran’s Family Protection Bill
By Amy Kellogg

Published November 29, 2011
FoxNews.com

The Iranian government calls it the Family Protection Bill, but activists call it the “Anti-Family Protection Bill.”

It would give men the right to take a second wife without the permission of the first, and it would enshrine a man’s right to have an unlimited number of temporary marriages, which can last from 10 minutes to 99 years. Those arrangements come from Shariah law and have always existed in Iran, but the Family Protection Bill would make them official.

Two groups – the International Coalition Against Violence in Iran, and the Association of Iranian Researchers – arranged a press conference in London last week to raise awareness of the issue. Amid the upheaval in Iran right now – the hardship associated with sanctions, and the political strife – they question why such a law, which has been winding its way through Iran’s government for several years, even needs to be on the table.

Women opposed to the articles in the bill that pertain to polygamy went on a brave and creative odyssey more than a year ago to confront it, traveling around Iran to talk to women whose lives have been adversely affected by their husbands taking second wives.

The women wrote their stories on pieces of cloth; if they were illiterate, they had someone else write them down. Then they sewed the pieces together into a quilt.

The quilt is still in Iran, but a digital image was smuggled out.

“Most of the stories are from around Iran, not from Tehran. They are sad stories,” said Rouhi Shafii of the International Coalition Against Violence in Iran.

Here is a translation of one of the stories:

“A few years after my marriage, my husband started telling me, jokingly, that I looked like an old woman. I was five years younger than he. He began beating me and broke my hands several times. When he talked of taking up another wife, I took it as a joke. He wouldn’t do that, I thought. We have two children. But one day he married a young girl and wanted to get a two story building to bring his bride to live with us. I made him swear on the Koran not to do that, and he took his child bride elsewhere. He forgot about us and spent all his earning enjoying his bride. I was providing for the children by working at people’s homes or hairdressing salons. My younger son says: ‘when I grow up, I will kill my dad.’”

**A group of women activists also gathered 15,000 signatures from women opposed to the law — signatures complete with their addresses. The activists brought the signatures and the quilt to Parliament last year, to try to stop the legalization of the polygamy articles as part of the new law. Parliament accepted the signatures, but would not take the quilt.

“It was a very brave act they did last year, in the middle of demonstrations and detentions,” Shafii told Fox News.

Many of the women involved in creating the quilt are out of Iran right now, but they were afraid to appear at the press conference, fearing the regime would make life hard for their families back home.**

To many Iranian women, temporary marriage is tantamount to legalized prostitution. But the women’s opposition to the bill is not unanimous. Many female Members of Parliament are as conservative as the men, and they support the legislation.

At this point, the two articles of the bill that deal with polygamy are on hold, but they have not been canceled out of the bill. Shafii believes activism has kept those bills from being passed so far.
They were very brave.
Every woman whose name is on that list could become a target for the government to imprison or execute. The only thing the men who run Iran appear to despise more than the ‘Great Satan’ (i.e. America) is their own women.
 
“19th November 2011:
The ultra-conservative Islamic state has said it has the right to stop women revealing ‘tempting’ eyes in public.
A spokesperson for Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, Sheikh Motlab al Nabet, said a proposal to enshrine the measure in law has been tabled.”
Link.

:dts:If the faith cannot control our lust then what !!!, why Muslim men cannot control themselves !!!, why it’s always the woman fault !!!, we want woman to be cover totally in black…

From this:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39802000/jpg/_39802911_veil203.jpg

To this:
http://www.5abr.com/wp-content/uploads/1120-150x150.jpg
Pathetic dear, but since you are from Saudi, so indeed your country is much worse than any other Muslim countries ( as far I know). I really feel very sad for those women.

And I am terrified by the increasing perversion of Muslims eyes,because their eyes are becoming more aggressive and lewd, and the result is, rape victims are increasing terribly in every Muslim countries.

This is a disaster for mankind for sure.No nation will survive by dishonoring women. And do not mind my friend( because you are a of SA), but you know that, if Saudi Arabia or other Arabian countries would not get the petrol mine, for sure,Islamists would not be able to invade the world.

You must have noticed that because of the wealth of Muslims, the problems are increasing. to bad act from God ( if he exists). We know that they are spending billion dollars in poor Muslim countries, only to create lots of Jihadist,although SA always proclaims that they are against terrorism, but the reality is totally different , and dear Sam, you know that much better than me or than others, who are not from SA.

This is my question to all the Christian friends and to their merciful God too, why did he chose Arabs to make such wealthy suddenly?Why did he give them the petro-dollars?only to spread the cult worldwide?I have really no idea!Would you like to explain this cruel act from a kind God? is it a plan to bring the Armageddon soon?
 
I agree. Funny how the women is the blame for everything, but yet the husband can commit adultery and thats okay!🤷

I always think when they wear the veil are they gonna hold the place up or something:eek:
Hmm, Husbands can commit adultery by taking multiple wives and concubine together. It is permitted in Islam.

even though Muslim men are not allowed to do pre-marital sex, still they are doing without getting any type of punishment, and on the other hand, if even Muslim women return home after 10 pm ( yes 10 pm and return alone) sometimes,and if they are raped by some perverts, still Muslim society punish the rape victim, by considering them as prostitute, or atleast an ill mannered woman, who provoked men to rape her :(. what a disaster, you see?
 
Its because women are regarded as chattel under Islamic law.
And in Islam women are also regarded as pieces of fertile land, where their husbands can plow,then put seeds and make … lol. So funny and a bit erotic flavor, don’t you think so? ;). I would like to explain it as erotic humiliation to women.
 
Islam bad. Christianity good.
Not sure, But I have found Christianity, much better than any other religion.Although I am only talking of the NT laws, because I found OT as cruel as Koran.

But yes, if you want to ask an atheist, for sure he/she will prefer a Christian country than a Muslim country, because Christians never offended me,because of atheism, but Muslims do so every time. Thankfully I will never convert to any other religion, so atleast I am safe from death threat of Muslims.
 
I just got an email from this American based organization that is keeping tabs on militant Muslims…

There is a talk given by a Muslim woman who wants to prosecute Muslim women living in the USA to be forced to wear the veil…

Don’t respond until I get the correct information…but it doesn’t surprise me…

As I shared earlier, a Muslim immigrant woman told me that those Muslim women who come here wearing the veil, etc., are doing it for political reasons…not spiritual…and imposing their ways on us. The same ones always make us question if we would be allowed our religious rites if we lived in their country…and so far, no answer from them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top