Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About iCambrian

  • Rank
    The Scientist

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Christian Humanist

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,212 profile views
  1. Well, with France as an exception, in one region there is choice to wear a headscarf while in another region the choice is not there. I suppose it's all relative, if exposed hair is viewed as immoral, or exposed breast (seems normal in some African cultures). Those cultures I suppose could call western nations oppressive for making women cover breasts. A headscarf may be viewed in a higher light if other details of an Islamic lifestyle were also viewed in a nicer way. Maybe it's just a piece of the puzzle.
  2. I'm quite satisfied in my own as well.
  3. There are many posts in this topic that I recommend you yourself, read more clearly. thanks.
  4. And with that, I will not be bothered to do so. all the best
  5. Many people in the west, or most I should say, do not know anything about Islam. This is at least the case in the US. And with that, the most exposure anyone ever gets is when there is an attack, which of course is counter productive. Beyond that, people fear things that they do not understand, and want nothing to do with crazy wahabi. ------------------------------------- But regarding a more moderate Islam, women who are comfortable without a veil, of course wouldn't like being told that its an obligation. Gays of course want to be able to marry and live comfortable lives (as opposed to being threatened with prison time and hell file. And there are many other details of sharia that people are uncomfortable with. Im not about to pull a list out, but if you have spent a day or two on these forums, you find topics prop up all the time on controversial laws, or topics made by defiant people. So, while there are extreme people who voted for trump because he said he would ban all muslims from the us, there are also just regular every day people who have, what I would say are legitimate concerns. The best anyone could do, I suppose is what we are doing here, just openly talking about it.
  6. This is great^, it shows the nature of your fallacious logic. well if I'm wrong I can always move the goal post. Haha. It shows that you already have subject, pre conceived ideas. And that these pre conceptions are defining your position, regardless of if your current argument is baseless. You make this argument of Trinitarian thought not predating the counsel of nicea. Everyone person in this discussion, and every historian around disagrees. You assume that the Nicene creed opposed Trinitarian views. Yet couldn't give any literature backing that up. Just your own subjective views. You say, "well if im wrong, I can just assume something else" --------------------------------------------------------------------- At best, all I can say, is that I will pray for you.
  7. More assumptions. ^ And you know what they say about people who assume things.
  8. That is what we call, an assumption. And you cannot answer my question by posing another question. Your argument has failed, and with that, thank you for sharing. This has been an interesting discussion none the less.
  9. I will pose the question again, Where in the Nicene creed, or what documentation established at the council of nicea, explicitly rejects the holy spirit as a potential figure in the triune God?
  10. Agreeing on a stage of completion, is not equivalent to rejection of how the final stage exists. When you build a puzzle, everyone can say, ok, I agree with you on this. But it is not rejection of concepts yet to be discussed.
  11. I just joined this discussion, so you cant really criticize me of making prior suggestions on the topic. Either way, you are unable to answer my question. You are assuming that the Nicene Creed is explicitly against Trinitarian views. How do you figure?
  12. "90% of them rejected Un-ity and embraced di-ity." This is not what the Nicene creed states.^ It does not reject the holy spirit of a triune God, rather, it is vague with respect to the holy spirit and leaves it open ended.
  13. Establishing whether or not Jesus is God, is not equivalent to rejecting the holy spirit as part of a triune God. The establishment at the council of nicea appears to be more of a, "here is where we are at, here is where we agree thus far" kind of stage. As opposed to a "ok we have this all done, we are finished now" stage. Hence why in the next 50 years, further details were established with respect to the holy spirit. When I solve a large puzzle, I do so, one piece at a time. And I think that is what we are seeing here. And, I think some significant points here are those that came from LCM. She said something along the lines of "I don't think Trinitarian ideas came out of nowhere". If we know there were Trinitarian beliefs that predated and existed among figures of the council, then recognition of the Nicene creed, is therefore not something that rejects the holy spirit as a potential part of a triune God. And so, here is the question I would give to a true sunni, or baqar. Where in the Nicene creed, or what documentation established at the council of nicea, explicitly rejects the holy spirit as a potential figure in the triune God? If Arianism was outright rejected, then where is the material that also outright rejects the holy spirit? Because when I read the original Nicene creed, I don't see such material. In regards to the holy spirit, what I see is a lack of detail, almost like an omission out of ignorance or a detail, not yet established or clarified.
  14. Yes. Just in doing some reading, it appears as though, later in his life he was Trinitarian, and he was present at the council of Nicea and may have played a large role. But was he Trinitarian during the council of Nicea? Or is there record of figures who were present at the council, who were Trinitarian at that time?
  15. @Son of Placid @LeftCoastMom Do either of you know about athanasius? Was he trinitarian? And was he a figure of the consul of nicea?