Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

iCenozoic

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    572
  • Joined

2 Followers

About iCenozoic

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Maine, USA
  • Religion
    Christian Humanist
  • Mood
    Cheeseburger
  • Favorite Subjects
    food, rocks

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

950 profile views
  1. The Netflix Documentary on Waco was very biased, I'd recommend A&E's documentary, or something more fact based rather than media entertainment based. It was almost as bad as that Netflix Ted bundie film that made Ted bundie look like an innocent pop culture figure, rather than a sick murderer. Otherwise I agree, police certainly need to be held to high standards.
  2. Blacks have had a rough history in America and realistically on planet Earth at large. There was historic slavery. There was eventual "freedom" but with continued segregation. There was the civil rights movement and now there is more "freedom", but racism is something that can take generations to overcome. It's something that ultimately never really goes away either and will probably always be a part of America, and really the world over. But as a melting pot of a country, we have a responsibility to respect and love one another. Inner city crime stimulates that racism, and that further results in distrust in police departments if their officers are unrighteously killing others. I think black lives matters is good because it raises attention of police brutality and calls for police departments to do some internal tuning of their practices. How they handle certain crimes, who they hire, how they train people. If there was never a civil rights movement or a civil war, we wouldn't be anywhere. Black lives matter is taking it further to bring about changes in police brutality. And this is going to be a continued work in progress.
  3. In my decade on this site, it's rare that I get a plug^^ thanks! I've picked up a lot of information since 2011, maybe I'll update that topic.
  4. I think the opportunity is worth investigating. The couple could be lost in lust. But they could also have really thought things through and they could be anywhere in a spectrum in between. And parents could very well be justified if they decline, but let's all be honest here, our parents are human beings and aren't always perfect. We don't know the parents to say. Sometimes parents know what's best but sometimes it can be questionable. This marriage could be worth fighting for. And if so, then it's just a matter of if the parents would accept, if maybe given time. When my parents were young, interracial marriages were a huge taboo. Blacks and whites. But look at us today. We aren't perfect but we've come a long way. If there is an opportunity, we have to weigh odds if the marriage meets a legitimate criteria. And maybe local religious leaders should be sought out for advise.
  5. Do you think that a Sunni and Shia marriage cannot work? I would think that it has to be possible. I believe that it could very well be part of God's plan to bring some together, such as this. I always hear Muslims speaking of uniting the Ummah. This is where it starts. Believing in something. Believing that relationships between various faiths can find ways to work together, to sacrifice for one another and to "become one flesh". And it's not like we are discussing an atheist and a Shia, or a Jew and a Shia. We're talking about two muslims. It has to be possible. Now, maybe the parents don't believe in interfaith marriage. And that is a big deal, but it might not necessarily mean that the parents ideas are justified.
  6. Sometimes I think of stories of Jesus gathering the disciples. In that, the interactions between Jesus and his followers served as a catalyst for their belief. Did the disciples want to follow Jesus prior to them building a relationship? It was only after extended teachings and after spending time together that they said, ok, I am inspired by what I see and I will follow. And when Jesus left the disciples, they remained with the message. Had Jesus left the disciples early in his teaching before the disciples understood his cause, the disciples likely would have disbanded and went home. The same could potentially be said with this marriage in that, the man could return to sunnism if the relationship fails, if he is premature in his Shia faith. However, the idea that they could have abandoned the cause doesn't take away from what was ultimately gained. Which is to say that, the relationship between Jesus and the disciples, saved lives, and a marriage can too. Ideally the man would find his faith independently, but a marriage could serve as the catalyst to save a life. And with adequate community support and good teaching, the man could ultimately thrive as a Shia, despite a potential current scenario in which he might leave if the relationship fails. Every strong flame starts with a spark that can be tended to, that can grow. I think what I am trying to say is that, while social factors may be significant now, if the man received the right resources, over time he might grow in a Shia faith and his life could be saved as a result of the initial relationship.
  7. It's true that some 10,000 people die from falling down stairs every year as well. Social distancing can save lives when it comes to a virus, but obviously social distancing won't help with cancer. If social distancing did help with cancer, and if cancer was contagious, and if we were able to develop a vaccine that could eradicate cancer, I'm sure we would social distance for cancer. I know I personally would.
  8. It's all about harms benefits analyses. Especially starting off, nobody really knew what the death rate would be. At a point in the US, we were experiencing over 2,000 deaths per day, hospitals were being overwhelmed (some still are), there is no vaccine either which means that hypothetically without social distancing, the virus could infect every individual. If every individual were infected, we could very well have several hundred thousand more deaths (though we may yet hit 200,000 deaths before this is all over). Consider how NY has over 30,000 deaths, while California with twice the population has almost 4,000. A difference being congestion of NY and an easier environment for the spread of the virus. And it's also worth considering that nation's take precautions simply because nation's can afford to do so. Yes many have suffered from closure of the economy, but here in the US, suffering isn't like impoverished 3rd world country suffering, it just means you get a 1200 dollar check in the mail and you sit at home filing for unemployment.
  9. Surely, in the world, there must be countless successful sunni-shia marriages. So I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of success simply because of this situation. Religion is sometimes a double edged sword. We seek unity in religion, and of course there is this constant idea of uniting our faiths. But simultaneously, we have our faith's acting as a wedge between us. As a non Muslim, I think that if you feel compatable, if you've considered the challenges you might face and have confidence that those challenges can be overcome without ruining family ties, and you feel like you both are willing to sacrifice for one another to make a relationship work, then I'd go for it. But I also come from probably a different cultural background. If you haven't told your parents, then I think that's kind of a red flag. It suggests that serious obstacles may await. Whether justified or not, disapproval from parents could break a situation, especially if the man and woman are dependent on those patents for their livelyhood. You don't want to have to choose between being disowned and marrying someone. That's what my parents did and my mother was disowned for years for marrying a man of another race. Decades later everyone forgave each other, but my parents suffered a lot of pain as a result. And here I am today. It would also be worth spending time thinking about it. If you just met a month ago, it's probably too soon to really understand the extent of the situation. But if you both have been thinking about this and pondering ideas for a year or two, then you are likely to have a better idea of what it would take to succeed.
  10. I'm pretty sure we talked about this at least a month ago. The percentage back in March in the US was actually around 3%, then it had risen to 4%, and then to 5% by April. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was you who was throwing out some bizarre number of like a 20% death rate or something outrageous. I'll go find the post. Here it is: Your original line of reasoning suggesting that 1/5 cases resulted in death, didn't make sense from the beginning. The data has been pretty consistent, it's your own perspective that has changed.
  11. As an illegitimate child myself, I am personally quite proud of my accomplishments and upstanding lack of a criminal record. Interesting topic!
  12. Don't worry, people will find a way to blame western forces as they always do.
  13. And it has to be said, if Tacitus, a Roman historian that lived at the time of the apostles, is not a credible source due to him being a second hand account, I dare not ponder what this means for accounts of the Quran on the same topic, written hundreds of years later.
  14. It was written perhaps just 50 years after the book of Mathew. And perhaps just 20 years after the book of John. Doesn't seem "way" later to me. But even if it were 50 years later, why else might it be non credible, contrary to universal opinion by historians? Some scholars have debated the historical value of the passage given that Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[55] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz argue that Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator.[56] Theissen and Merz state that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear.[57] However, Paul Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.[24] Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[61] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[62] However, Paul Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[24] Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body.[63] We would have to wonder, why would a Roman historian write of the crucifixion as history if he was disgusted by and despised Christians? Presumably, he wouldn't take their word for it.
  15. I wonder what Muslims think of records of Tacitus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1] The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]
×
×
  • Create New...