I have a follow-up to being born vs made: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1136482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friends.html Thoughts? I don't think it necessarily changes whether someone would be an Atheist or not since it also includes 'imaginary friends' but, I'm just wondering whether any Atheists would, based on studies like these, consider that it might be more of a 'made' than born? I actually read those articles a while ago and didn't think of them in this context until seeing that question above. Hope I didn't offend :).

I don't know about a story but I know quite a bit about maritime law thanks to the 'Trial of Captain Hook'. Does that count?

Be safe, guys!

Thanks for doing this thread. I honestly didn't have any questions to start with but reading other questions, kind of had 'oh I wonder what the answer to that is' moments so this was a good read, very informative. My only question is whether there is a reason that people often use agnostic and atheist interchangeably? Is it meant to demean one or the other? Are there more similarities and overlaps between them that make it reasonable? I've always heard that agnostics believe there is a higher power but that religion is man-made whereas atheists don't believe in any higher power. Is that correct or just a misunderstanding? And I'm sorry for the really stupid question, LOL, I realize it is a doozy.

Very sorry to hear that. Must've been a serious shock! Hopefully, if needed, he will get his transplant and be good as new. The liver is quite resilient given the chance.

That is far from the majority opinion. It is honestly not debatable in Arabic. Unless you're speaking about monotheists who never had the chance to become Muslim, who never heard or lived before the message came. However, I assumed the questioner was asking about Christians and since a fundamental Christian belief involves worship of Jesus, that does not qualify under the definition of Islamic monotheism. I'm not sure if I am misunderstanding what you mean, though. Are you referring to this: “Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in Allaah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.†[al-Maa’idah 5:69] Or was my comment misleading, because when I reread it, it didn't really clarify that the Jews and Christians of the past who followed what was revealed to them are considered to be in Heaven? Ibn Katheer said in his tafseer of the aayah from Soorat al-Baqarah: “Allaah, may He be exalted, points out that whoever of the previous nations did well and was obedient, will have a good reward, and this will be the case for everyone who follows the Unlettered Prophet [Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until the Hour comes – he will have eternal happiness, and they will not fear what they are going to face, nor will they grieve for what they have left behind. As Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘No doubt! Verily, the awliya’ of Allaah [i.e., those who believe in the Oneness of Allaah and fear Allaah much, and love Allaah much], no fear shall come upon them nor shall they grieve.’ [Yoonus 10:62]. And Allaah tells us what the angels say to the believers at the time of death (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, those who say, “Our Lord is Allaah,†then they istaqaamu [stood straight, i.e., truly followed Islam], on them the angels will descend (at the time of their death) (saying): “Fear not, nor grieve! But receive the glad tidings of Paradise which you have been promised!â€â€™ [Fussilat 41:30] As far as the Jews are concerning, their faith meant believing in the Tawraat (original Torah) and following the way of Moosa (peace be upon him) until ‘Eesa came, after which whoever continued to follow the Torah and the way of Moosa, and did not leave this and follow ‘Eesa, was doomed. As far as the Christians are concerned, their faith meant believing in the Injeel (original Gospel) and following the laws of ‘Eesa; whoever did this was a believer whose faith was acceptable to Allaah, until Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came, after which whoever did not follow Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and leave the way of ‘Eesa and the Injeel that he had been following before, was doomed. The aayah (interpretation of the meaning), “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers†[Aal ‘Imraan 3:85] is a statement that Allaah will not accept any way or deed from anyone, after sending His Final Messenger, except those that are in accordance with the laws of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Prior to this, however, anyone who followed the Prophet of his own time was on the Straight Path of salvation. So the Jews were those who followed Moosa (peace be upon him) and referred to the Tawraat for judgement at that time. When Allaah sent ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), the Children of Israel were obliged to follow him and obey him, and so they and others who followed him became Christians.. When Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as the Final Prophet and a Messenger to all the children of Adam, all of mankind was obliged to believe in him and obey him, and refrain from what he prohibited. Those who did so are the true believers. The ummah (nation) of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are called the believers because of their deep eemaan (faith) and conviction, and because they believe in all the past Prophets and in the prophesied events that are yet to come.†Commenting on the aayah in Soorat al-Baqarah, Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “What is meant is that every group believed in Allaah and the Last Day, which is the appointed Day of Reckoning, and did righteous deeds. But after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent to both mankind and the jinn, true belief can only be in accordance with the way of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Whoever follows his way will not fear the future or grieve for what they leave behind. if you disagree though, feel free to PM me and I'll send you textual proof, if you like. Otherwise, agree to disagree?

I will check the Ladies' day thing out, Berta! Thanks.

Because I wear a headscarf, I am afraid to go that someone will get the wrong idea about the type of person I am and why I am learning.

Actually, there isn't really much disagreement over the essence of Hell among Muslims because it described in the Qur'an in many places. There are essentially 2 types of Hell: the eternal Hell for people who disbelieve and the Hell for sinful Muslims which eventually will end with them being admitted to Heaven. It is given very vivid descriptions within the Qur'an and Hadeeth and a pretty frightening description, at that. There is also a period called 'Al-Barzakh' which refers to the grave and the process that the soul undergoes after death before the Day of Judgement and the entering of Heaven or Hell. For those who die upon bad deeds and/or disbelief, their soul is punished in the grave: For those who believe and do good: And this doesn't get to the description of Hell itself. I haven't found a source that compiles all the descriptions the way it is done for Paradise but it is described in quite rich detail within the Qur'an. Now, on a more positive note...my son has a present for me in the form of a diaper change ;).

I thought to expand on the above. My father and his whole family are Muslim from an Arab country however my mother is an American Christian (who went to seminary in hopes of becoming a pastor but has taken a break). I was raised primarily by my Episcopal mother and Catholic stepfather till about 14 or so when I read the Bible (in entirety), the Gnostic Gospels (Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Mary Magdalene, at least), strongly considered Catholocism, and then decided to explore other faiths before I decided that I believed Islam was the Truth. I've learned a lot over the years and made religious study a huge priority in my household and as I've gained knowledge, I feel I've gained faith and understanding of why things are the way they are. I will admit that of the areas that were hardest for me to accept in the beginning, the idea that you had to be Muslim to get to Paradise was a really hard one for me at the time, especially having non-Muslim family members and having been raised very liberally and brought up believing that 'all paths lead to God and everyone will go to Heaven if they are good people' though now I am completely at peace with it and do not have doubts. One thing that helped, in my opinion, was understanding how seriously the sin of associating partners with God is in Islam. It is HUGE. When I reflect on how much God has provided for us, how he has laid out the earth and the sky for us, how he has given us so many amazing things over the years and provided us with sustenance with the simple purpose that we worship Him and Him alone, I can see how rejecting him and putting others beside him would be the biggest sin that could not be forgiven without repentance and I imagine that even if you are of another faith, knowing that a faith places such an emphasis on this specific aspect, you could also see why that would be the case.

We do believe in Hell and we believe that belief that 'there is no God but God and Muhammad is his final Messenger' and not associating any partners with Him is required for entrance into heaven so yes, someone who knowingly rejects that message and ascribes to another religion would be in Hell. Exceptions include people who never heard the message, the mentally ill/insane or those who lack the intelligence to understand the idea of religion (like someone with mental retardation), and children who die before reaching adulthood.

I admit that I am pretty pro-gun control (and would probably be cool with an Aussie style gun restriction even) however, I certainly believe that the ability for citizens to possess guns is not going to change in the US (though I certainly wish there would be a little more regulation regarding background checks/psychological condition) and that being the case, would not be adverse to teaching my daughters (or sons, I suppose) how to shoot. I don't know how myself and I'm sure I'd regret it if I were ever in a self-defense position. My uncle (mother's side) bought me pepper spray, offered me a taser (which I declined), and told me I should learn (as he carries) but I'm afraid to go to the shooting range and have people get the wrong idea of me dressed as I do. For now, I try to give my children the appropriate deference the seriousness of guns (or weapons in general) by not allowing them to pretend play with them and I do not allow them to play with toy guns in any situation. I have another family member who is a real fool about it. Doesn't even have a gun safe and leaves loaded guns sitting around despite children being in the house (with the idea being that pulling the slide(?) would be way too difficult for a child to do since even his wife doesn't have the strength to do it). Obviously, I avoid that family member like the plague, but if my kids ever were in a situation where they encountered something like that I'd certainly want them to understand it is NOT a toy.

I'm still working on my degree. I started as a nursing major and switched to doing a B.A. in Social Work and Arabic this term as I didn't think I could realistically complete nursing school while dh is in med school at the same time with small children (one of whom is being homeschooled) and no family support or babysitter. I don't have much left for the degree and I plan to work a few years while DH goes through med school and once he is well set, I plan to apply to med school myself. Honestly, I always saw myself doing medicine and nursing was my back-up with plans to go on and do a Masters in Nurse-Midwifery because I didn't see how I'd manage the financial and home aspects of medicine. Doing it later and in a different sort of environment has made it a realistic goal for me so I'm willing to wait.

We believe that God did reveal the Torah (to Moses) and the Bible (to Jesus), however, we believe over time, the bible was corrupted, parts were removed from it and others added in (not to mention mistranslations) such that the original message was corrupted and that the versions that exist today are very far from that which was originally revealed. However, we still have respect for those books because regardless of whether we believe that most of what it contains is no longer the original, we believe they still contain some of the words and revelations from God. It is a requirement of basic creed to believe in Allah's Books (and these include the Torah, Bible/ Gospels, Psalms...) in their original form. We believe that the Qur'an is not in addition to the OT though, that the Qur'an was the final, perfected Book (the only Book needed now) to be sent down to God's people and that he made a promise that it would never be changed or corrupted through time and would remain perfect and infallible. I recently read a really good analogy on another thread that I can't find but it used a computer science analogy that really clarified it, IMO. However, there is no way I can do justice to it myself.

I saw you asked me about this on the old thread and I had to wait and get a copy of the book from my library (because I had it checked out before to decide if I was going to buy it and then returned it and decided to buy it but have been delaying it). I have to go back through the chapter to see what specifically was problematic, though I do not come from the historian background that you do and am basing it primarily on books of Islamic history. One thing that stands out in my mind, aside from the burning of the library, was that when writing about the birth of Islam he writes as though the Muslims were aggressively attacking and raiding the caravans of the Makkan tribes leading to the first big battle and that seems pretty purposely taken out of context to make them look bad skipping over the background of what actually proceeded the battle. But, again, I need to get some time to sit down with it and go through.

YES. Thank.You. That is all I'm saying. The world would be a much better place if people contributed to their disputes with mail order gorilla poo.

I just went to my SSA and there was one. He didn't ask me that, just yelled at me for bringing my coffee in with me so I ran back out to put it in the car. :laugh:

I wouldn't worry about it. Seems like right now she is ambitious and her main focus in her career. Years down the road, she may find she has room for a spouse in all that too. And, if she meets the right person, who is to say she won't change her mind? She hasn't right now, so it is easy for her to speak in permanent terms like that.

1st thought: Too young! 1st thought on reading the caption: ...unless you're a Black woman in Florida, in which case you'll get 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at your abusive ex who is threatening to kill you and has put you in the hospital before.

The Amelia Peabody series by Elizabeth Peters. I believe it starts with Crocodile on the Sandbank followed by The Curse of the Pharoahs, The Mummy Case, and therest of the series. Entertaining reads and witty enough to make me LOL.

You know, when I first heard that such a thing existed (mail order prank poop) in passing from a family friend making a joke, I knew that it would come in handy some day. 11 years later and it finally has ;)! I even saw you can enclose a note. I'm thinking something like 'Tonto? Seriously, asshat?!' though that might be a dead giveaway.

No,I definitely mean Grease. I don't think I could bear an attempt at Grease 2. The original was very popular among girls growing up but I just couldn't bring myself to not hate it. Exactly. Though actually, I thought he quits the team so he isn't 'lettered' anymore either like he originally did to make her happy. She is the only one who compromises. She asked him to be a gentleman and establish some legit goals and stop being an ass but eventually she learned an important lesson: that you should always change yourself to please a man who doesn't like you for yourself and that becoming an 'easy' (in comparison to her being characterized as a prude before) slacker is some kind of amazing accomplishment because at least he might stop being annoyed by your basic standards. They seriously had no real relationship and I found both of them to be losers. The only positive thing about that was the catchiness of the 'Sandra Dee' song and that probably isn't what you want to run around having stuck in your head in 5th grade. I didn't like that movie either though most people I know did. I was confused by certain things like, if Jenny died from AIDS in the end, did her son have it? Did she give it to Forrest or was it something she contracted in between having their son and meeting him again...I know that wasn't 'important' but I always think that in the end.

To be fair, I don't think it is a bad movie....it just bothers me and creeps me out in some way. I watched it when I was younger and felt it was disturbing at the time. The rabbit is freaking scary.

Grease The Notebook Both of the Hulk Movies Donnie Darko Regarding, LOTR, there is that one scene at the end where everyone laughs ridiculously and other characters come in and they're all laughing ridiculously and it just goes ON for so long....I cringe every time.

Yes, definitely possible. Are you looking for foster adoption, domestic adoption, or international adoption. The only exception is that some countries don't do single parent adoption.