What was the nature of Jesus' (alayhi salam) birth?

[Grace Seeker]

and both are emergent from created material

From the Christian perspective Adam emerges from the dust of the ground. But, to use your terms, from what created material is Jesus emergent?

 

[YieldedOne]

Grace Seeker:
From the Christian perspective Adam emerges from the dust of the ground. But, to use your terms, from what created material is Jesus emergent?

The "created material" is the same: the "star-stuff" of the cosmic "dust" that all visible matter is composed of, including all life on earth. Both Adam and Jesus emerge from that same "star-stuff" that God uses by his Will. No embryo or Adam without created matter/energy.

Is this not accurate?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker:
From the Christian perspective Adam emerges from the dust of the ground. But, to use your terms, from what created material is Jesus emergent?

The "created material" is the same: the "star-stuff" of the cosmic "dust" that all visible matter is composed of, including all life on earth. Both Adam and Jesus emerge from that same "star-stuff" that God uses by his Will. No embryo or Adam without created matter/energy.

Is this not accurate?

I'm not going to tell you want to believe. My thoughts lean more toward the idea that in the same way God spoke the star-stuff itself into being, that God spoke the embyo which was born and named Jesus into being.

All the rest of humanity, Adam included, is made from star-stuff in one form or another. But in the incarnation, I don't think that Jesus' embryo was formed by those means, but is itself the spoken Word of God appearing in the flesh.

 

[YieldedOne]

GraceSeeker:
My thoughts lean more toward the idea that in the same way God spoke the star-stuff itself into being, that God spoke the embyo which was born and named Jesus into being.
All the rest of humanity, Adam included, is made from star-stuff in one form or another. But in the incarnation, I don't think that Jesus' embryo was formed by those means, but is itself the spoken Word of God appearing in the flesh.

Hmmm. Maybe I need to get some understanding here. You don't believe that the human flesh of Jesus' embryo was composed of created matter/energy at all? I can understand the word of God being "enfleshed" in created matter/energy...but not that the human flesh of that "word" being something OTHER THAN created matter/energy.

Is that what you are saying?

There is a difference in that Adam was composed from "dust" already there whereas Jesus' "dust"(via divinely-empowered embryogenesis) would ITSELF exist by divine fiat. But it would STILL be composed of created matter/energy. Feel me?

 

[YieldedOne]

naidamar:
if god really died, who ran the universe?

This question basically deals with the idea of two realms of consciousness in God's self-perception: Is there any way that a divine Person can experience divinity and createdness at the same time within one self-understanding? There really is a decent analogy within human experience that could go some way to explaining this...but there'd have to be some serious openmindedness to accept.

First of all, do you know what "lucid dreaming" is? Further, "wake-induced" lucid dreaming? I know the question seems far afield, but it will make sense to you easier if you already understand those phenomena.

 

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) I cannot claim how action occur outside the realm of time. But muslims agree, as per Qur'an and ahadeeth, that Allah is outside creation.
( b )You, however claim that it is not possible, so you must show us why is it not possible while the definition of God is clear that He could cause anything at anytime without having affected by time.

( a ) good, i didn't think so either because actions do not occur outside of time. so in the end after all your claims of logic and whatnot, it turns out that you cannot make your case though reason and rather uphold it based on mere belief. like i said, there's nothing wrong with that but the fact of the matter is that you cannot disprove my argument.

( b ) it doesn't matter how god is defined (as i recall, polytheists defined their gods as literally being born and yet we would agree that that is illogical), what matters is if it makes sense. you have consistently been unable to counter my argument and now would expect me agree to your position based on mere belief and what the qur'an and hadith supposedly say. well if they do make this claim then i have shown you that they also contradict themselves on this matter and as you've noted, you cannot prove this claim of mine wrong through reason.

i find it quite strange that you would ask me to show you proof for the claims that i'm making when i've been doing so since my very first post in this thread. have you at all been reading what i have written? if you had then you wouldn't be asking this of me but here is my argument again:

whether god is atemporal, casually temporal, or really temporal does not provide me with any difficulties for there are theologians on all sides of the issue yet this is different than the question i was asking you. i asked you how allah could take on dimensions and as such enter into his creation (space). i asked you how he could act without entering the realm of time when action by its very definition involves time. do you understand why it is said that god created time when he created everything else in existence? it is because that was the first moment of action that he took and the very fact that he acted brought about the reality and the beginning of time. prior to this there was no action on the part of god. even the statement that god created time when he created everything else admits that action can't exist outside the realm of time. in light of this, how then do you claim that god does not enter time when he acts seeing as there are moments before, during and after these acts?

you have consistently claimed that christianity can't be true because it is not logical and yet now you're making your case not on logic but on mere belief and that is rather hypocritical and inconsistent of you. anyway, there's my argument and i await for your logical rebuttal and not merely the assertion of your opinion or beliefs.

I understand that you feel the need to force muslims to stoop down to your level of belief where God is not atemporal, not omniscient (God who didnt know what was going to happen), and not omnipotent (God who was so weak, overcome by two oafish romans and hung on the cross).
I feel pity that you have such concept of God.

Your subsequent drivel is mere repetetions that shows you lack logical capacity.[/U]

do note that insults cannot make up for the lack of an argument and in fact are rather childish. let us keep to a civil debate or is this too hard a task?

Now, since you seemed to know so much about what happen inside and outside of creation, answer this questions:

1. How can god be dead and alive at the same time?
You are talking big about "logic", now prove to me logically
was the lesser god truly dead?
2. you havent answered my question before: Why do christians think that God needed to scuckle breast, peed, cried, pooped, washed after himself?
was a human or god?
( c ) if he was a human, how can he be god?

it's not logical!

oh, I am having fun here.

( d ) and if god really died, who ran the universe?
( e ) and if he did not really die, why is it called sacrifice?

the mind boggles.

1. death happens to the body and as such if god wills it, the human body can experience death, this would not mean that god as he is in himself would experience death. when christians say that god died, they do not say that the being of god died because god as he is in himself cannot die, rather they say that the body he occupied experienced death. you seem to have trouble with the phrase god as he is in himself" and as such you would do well to look up this term and avoid further elementary mistakes as has already occured with the concept of omnitemporal and atemporal.

2. christians do not believe that god needed to do any of that, rather he chose to let the human body function as it should. even then it would not be the being of god which would need to function as such but rather the human body. you seem to wish to predicate the properties of one nature unto the other and there is no warrant for that. once again this stems from your lack of understanding of the hypostatic union and the concept of god as he is in himself.

( c ) i suppose that you failed to read my post #95. it was a response to the best muslim argument for why jesus could not be god and it is exactly how i would have written it if i were a muslim yet still it was rather simple to prove wrong given that we're talking in terms of logic. please do get to reading it.

( d ) i must say that i get this question a lot even though there is not much sense in it. you seem to think that death entails the ceasing of existence. even when humans die you believe that they do not cease to exist. so in the case of christ, if his body were to experience death, he would not cease to exist either and he would still have a will etc. as such the universe would still run smoothly. your question fails to make a point because it misunderstands death as oblivion where the individual and their will is no more. yet that is not what death is in either christianity or islam and as such it is rather easy to show how incorrect the question is.

( e ) he did die. death is experienced by the body and it is as such that in such a state the body ceases to function. whether a resurrection happens later is beside the point. once one is dead they are dead and if it is god's will to raise them back to life, it would still not change the fact that they were dead at some point. given that they were truly dead, it qualifies as a sacrifice.

the above are logical responses. the trouble you have with all your questions is that you predicate the properties of one nature unto the other and that is completely unjustified. better yet, could you please give us an argument for why the properties of one nature should be predicated on the other? you also don't understand the concept of god as he is in himself nor the matter of the hypostatic union (and in my experience, few muslims have heard of this concept) and so it is rather disheartening to converse with an individual on these matters when this very same person does not actually know what christianity teaches on these matters? if you wish to continue with such discussions in the future it would be good for you to look up the matter of the hypostatic union. this not only will edify you but it will make our discussions more productive if you can understand christian doctrine and attack it from there without making such elementary mistakes. that may have been a bit too harsh on my part but it needed to have been said. the fact that all your points relied on inaccurate knowledge of the concept of essences and christian doctrine is a tad aggravating to have to respond to. learn these things and it will become a pleasure to discuss the supposed faults of the christian belief with you.

 

[Grace Seeker]

GraceSeeker:
My thoughts lean more toward the idea that in the same way God spoke the star-stuff itself into being, that God spoke the embyo which was born and named Jesus into being.
All the rest of humanity, Adam included, is made from star-stuff in one form or another. But in the incarnation, I don't think that Jesus' embryo was formed by those means, but is itself the spoken Word of God appearing in the flesh.

Hmmm. Maybe I need to get some understanding here. You don't believe that the human flesh of Jesus' embryo was composed of created matter/energy at all? I can understand the word of God being "enfleshed" in created matter/energy...but not that the human flesh of that "word" being something OTHER THAN created matter/energy.

Is that what you are saying?

NO. That's not what I am saying.

Jesus' body was certainly matter. It was every bit as human as that of Adam and vice versa. But the means by which each was generated do not have to be the same. Just as the matter of which the stars themselves were made was "spoken" into being, and the matter of which Adam was made was formed of the dust of the ground, and the matter of which you and I were made was the result of procreation. No two material beings have to have been generated by the same means. I believe that the means by which the piece of matter, the embryo, that eventually was born and came to be known by us as Jesus was not formed of the dust like Adam nor procreated like you and me, but like the stars themselves was simply spoken into being by the very Word who incarnated himself in that matter. I don't have any particular verse that I can hang my hat on for that belief, but as the gospel of John tells us that the Word was with God in the beginning and was himself God and that then this Word became flesh, it seems to me to rule out the other two modes of producing humans. The Word pre-existed the body in which he would eventually dwell. And the body came into being quite apart from the ordinary means of biological procreation, and pretty obviously was not formed from the dust of the ground within Mary's womb, and spontaneous development of a human egg apart from sperm would produce a clone of the mother. So, lacking all of the above in the case of Jesus and theorizing on other mechanism by which a human embryo might occur in Mary's womb that would produce a male child, it seems to me that a miraculous creation of the embryo itself is the best answer that I can arrive at given my present understanding of the facts.

There is a difference in that Adam was composed from "dust" already there whereas Jesus' "dust"(via divinely-empowered embryogenesis) would ITSELF exist by divine fiat.

What is different between saying divinely-empowered embryogenesis existing by divine fiat and saying God spoke the star-stuff that was the embyro that became Jesus into being?

 

[YieldedOne]

Yo, GraceSeeker.

I don't think we're disagreeing much at all here. I would agree that the human embryo of Jesus did not come about by human procreation or formed of earth dirt, but was "spoken" into being in the womb of Mary. I don't think we're disagreeing at all. I suppose you're saying that God's being Adam into being is not totally equivalent to God's bringing the human embryo of Jesus into being at all points. I'm fine with that. There is likeness in the ways that the Quran suggests: 1) Will of God ultimate source of individual existence and 2) the natural link to the "earth", being a material, carbon-based lifeform. Both Adam and Jesus were fully human, therefore "of the earth"...and they both emerged in human history by divine will.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Yo, GraceSeeker.

I don't think we're disagreeing much at all here.

:thumbs_up



(I have no purpose for this parenthetical comment other than that, in order to please the computer, I am also adding the required 12 characters -- and then some -- need to submit a post.)

 

[جوري]

This question basically deals with the idea of two realms of consciousness in God's self-perception: Is there any way that a divine Person can experience divinity and createdness at the same time within one self-understanding? There really is a decent analogy within human experience that could go some way to explaining this...but there'd have to be some serious openmindedness to accept. First of all, do you know what "lucid dreaming" is? Further, "wake-induced" lucid dreaming? I know the question seems far afield, but it will make sense to you easier if you already understand those phenomena.

:haha: open mindedness or hogwash? what about those years when god was suckling or taking bathroom breaks? did he have an intelligent thought and creative design in his infant mind? The stuff you guys write is always worthy of such a hearty guffaw..

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Both the Noble Quran and the Bible claim that GOD Almighty is an Absolute One and only One:

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him. (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)"

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4)"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)"
​

Notice also how Jesus said "our God", which included him to be under GOD Almighty's creation and Divine Authority, and not someone or an entity that is equal to GOD Almighty.

The Bible's New Testament also records Jesus saying: ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

If Jesus doesn't consider himself as "good", then how can any sane person put him on the same level as GOD Almighty?

I have yet to seen a good answer to this one by any polytheist trinitarian.

Also, another important point to notice in Mark 10:18 is the word "alone": ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"

Jesus in this verse is clearly giving exclusivity to GOD Almighty when he said "alone". If Jesus was truly part of GOD Almighty and/or the trinity lie was true, then Jesus, to say the least, would not have said that.​

 

[YieldedOne]

Hey there, Hamza81!
Let's start at the beginning here. It is conceded that Jesus believed that there was only One God, His Father (and the Father of the Children of Israel). That seems fairly obvious from his Jewish background and steady belief in the Shema. He would have had that belief as a full human being raised by the Torah. In short, he was a good "child of Israel." Moreover, it's clear from biblical testimony that Jesus saw himself as "nothing" or "empty" before God such that he (Jesus) did nothing on his own but only by the power and will of God the Father. Paul talks about how Christians are supposed to imitate just this type of humility in their own lives.

All that's given...ok? That's why it's natural that Jesus would have made the statement you quote.

Now...

The question that we need to ponder is whether or not it is even CONCEIVABLE that the "word" of Allah that Isa is...is not only creaturely, but an eternal self-disclosure of God enfleshed. Is that even possible?
Is that fair?

 

[YieldedOne]

Two things:

1) Jesus is ALREADY considered to be a "word" of Allah, quranically speaking. Allah's says "Be" and Jesus is. This is what happened in Mary's womb, yes? The question is whether or not it is CONCEIVABLE that a creaturely reality can "incarnate" eternal reality. Can Jesus can an ETERNALLY SPOKEN "word" of Allah manifested into human history through Mary?

2) If it is conceivable for the Quran itself to be creaturely manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality being the very "word" of Allah...I don't see how it can be said to be INconceivable that Allah could do the very same thing through a human being.

 

[جوري]

Two things:

1) Jesus is ALREADY considered to be a "word" of Allah, quranically speaking. Allah's says "Be" and Jesus is. This is what happened in Mary's womb, yes? The question is whether or not it is CONCEIVABLE that a creaturely reality can "incarnate" eternal reality. Can Jesus can an ETERNALLY SPOKEN "word" of Allah manifested into human history through Mary?

2) If it is conceivable for the Quran itself to be creaturely manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality being the very "word" of Allah...I don't see how it can be said to be INconceivable that Allah could do the very same thing through a human being.

word acrobatics still doesn't make gods of men. The creation of Jesus is the like the creation of Adam. both were the command be.. God is completely outside of creation, the laws of physics and the universe. We don't define God by the stretch of your imagination or other christian rhetoric.
If you're happy worshiping a man and the messenger instead of focusing on the message, then by all means be my guest, but if God intends a religion for all mankind, it would be easily understood by idiots and theologians alike.. if you find yourself working with complicated numbers on a math exam I guarantee you're going to get the answer incorrect.. and if you have to likewise do the same convolutions with religion then by the same token you'll be taking yourself down a very dangerous path..

I don't understand why it is Christians have such difficulty with logic?

 

[YieldedOne]

Surah 4:171
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.


I already see the anti-Trinitarian sentiment in the passage. So I'll grant that up front, 'kay? Allah doesn't need a son to be Allah. Got it.

But check out the concept that Jesus, son of Mary, was Allah's "word which He directed to Mary" as well as a created soul. (Christians believe that Jesus has a created human soul, too, by the way.)

Here's the thing: is there anything, Quranically speaking, that renders INCONCEIVABLE that the "word" spoken by Allah to Mary was simultaneously an eternal, uncreated word of self-disclosure temporally manifested like unto what is claimed about the Quran itself?

If so, please state those concepts with the accompanying Quranic material, if you would. That would be very helpful. If not, then...

 

[جوري]

Christian philosophers and apologists have spent a great deal of time trying to make sense out of the Trinity. Below are some of the several attempts that Christians have taken while tackling the issue of the Trinity's logical incoherence:


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5909
http://www.********************/Authors/Arlandson/trinity_brief.htm
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/contradiction.htm
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-false-dilemmas.htm
http://www.carm.org/islam/obj_trinity.htm


However, after reading all of the above mentioned articles you would realize that what these Christians are doing is redefining or putting forth the notion of Trinity in a way that could be possible for it to be logically comprehended. They don't come up with the concept of the Trinity in light of the Bible and then see if it is logically coherent. Rather, they do the exact opposite. They try to formulate the Trinity in a way that it is logical and then say that this is what the Bible teaches.

However, what we should be interested in knowing is whether the concept of Trinity is logically coherent in light of what the Bible teaches.

What do Christians mean when they say that they believe in one God? They will say that they believe that God is one being (not one person) and this one being is manifested in three different persons. They will say that God is one being with three centers of consciousness, souls, personhoods, etc.

So it can be understood as follows:

- God is one being.
- This one being is manifested in three different persons.
- So when we Christians say that God is one, we are not emphasizing his oneness of personhood, rather we are emphasizing his oneness of being.

Furthermore they will say:

- The Father is truly God.
- The Son is truly God.
- The Holy Spirit is truly God.
- These are not three Gods, but three different persons who share the essence of that one being who is God.


Do the above statements make any sense? What do they mean when they say that there is one being who is God, but three different persons who share that one being's essence?

That is as illogical as me saying:


- Ahmed is a human being.
- Khalid is a human being.
- Ayman is a human being.
- These are not three human beings, but three different persons who share ONE essence, which is human.

Obviously no one says that one essence "human" is being shared by seven billion people on Earth today. Rather, we say that there are seven billion human beings on Earth today.

Similarly, we can't say that there are three different persons sharing the one essence of God, but that there are three different Gods in light of what the Trinity teaches.

Now this argument probably won't convince Christians, since they would probably go on and reply back saying "Our logic is too limited to grasp the paradox of the Trinity".

Well, if philosophical objections won't work then let us try to pose a theological objection to the concept of Trinity by taking a look at what the Bible says.

According to Christians:

- The Father is truly God.
- The Son is truly God.
- The Holy Spirit is truly God.

There is nothing irrational about the above statement (if we were to assume that it teaches three different Gods). Similarly, the following statement is also logical:

- Ahmed is a human being.
- Khalid is a human being.
- Ayman is a human being.


However, an irrational statement would be:

- Ahmed is the only human being.
- Khalid is the only human being.
- Ayman is the only human being.

Now this is definitely irrational. How is it possible for Ahmed and Khalid at the same time to be the only human being? Anyone could clearly see that these two beliefs are mutually exclusive and it cannot logically be possible for both of them tobe true at the same time.

What does the Bible say about God the Father (first person in the Trinitarian God head)?

It says this:

John 17:3

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


Notice how the Father is being referred to as THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Thus, we are required to restate the formulation of the Trinity as follows:


- The Father is the only true God.
- The Son is truly God.
- The Holy Spirit is truly God.


But just as we saw with the previous example, this is logically impossible. How is it possible for the Father to be the ONLY trueGod, while at the same time the Son and Holy Spirit are God as well? If the Son and Holy Spirit are God as well, then it is false to say that the Father is the ONLY trueGod. Similarly, if we say that the Father is the ONLY trueGod(how clearer can it get for someone to express Unitarianism?) then we can't say that anyone else (i.e. Son and Holy Spirit) is God as well.

It would also be ludicrous for someone to reformulate the Trinity as follows:

- The Father is the only true God.
- The Son is the only true God.
- The Holy Spirit is the only true God.


Since it would be necessary for atleast two of the above three statements to be false. It is not possible for any one of the persons (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) to be the ONLY trueGod at the same time when the other two are God as well.

Thus, in light of John 17:3 we see that the concept of Trinity is logically incoherent.

Sure, Christians can redefine the Trinity in a way that it could be make sense, but the problem with this would be that their understanding of the Trinity is not scripturally based. It would only be the product of their human thoughts. However, in light of the Bible (with it being authoritative to most Christians) we can safely say that the Trinity is logically incoherent. It is not simply a matter of it being beyond our logic, but AGAINST our logic. If it is AGAINST our logic then that means that it is a false belief.

Muslims, thank Allah Almighty that you are blessed to be following a rational religion.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/is_the_trinity_logically_coherent_in_light_of_biblical_teachings_

 

[YieldedOne]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ :
word acrobatics still doesn't make gods of men. The creation of Jesus is the like the creation of Adam. both were the command be.. God is completely outside of creation, the laws of physics and the universe. We don't define God by the stretch of your imagination. If you're happy worshiping a man and the messenger instead of focusing on the message, then by all means be my guest, but if God intends a religion for all mankind, it would be easily understood by idiots and theologians alike.. if you find yourself working with complicated numbers on a math exam I guarantee you're going to get the answer incorrect.. and if you have to likewise do the same convolutions with religion then by the same token you'll be taking yourself down a very dangerous path.. I don't understand why it is Christians have such difficulty with logic?

Yo, sister. How about you give me the benefit of the doubt that maybe I'm trying to be as logically consistent and honest with myself and others as possible. I don't think you have bad faith. Why would you think that I do? Please give me grace on that, ok?

Please remember. THIS is what I follow as I believe in Jesus/Isa...this is honestly what I believe his teaching was/is...

Human beings are to express singular worship of and submission to the One Uncreated Creator by a) thanksgiving, adoration and glorification to the Creator and b) works of loving-kindness and compassion to others and ourselves. In this, we are also to consecrate ourselves and be holy, compassionate, merciful, and loving because our Creator is holy, compassionate, merciful and loving.

I believe that, Quranically speaking, if I believe that the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is the One Uncreated Creator to whom all submission should take place...I'll be ok.

 

[جوري]

Yo, sister. How about you give me the benefit of the doubt that maybe I'm trying to be as logically consistent and honest with myself and others as possible. I don't think you have bad faith. Why would you think that I do? Please give me grace on that, ok?

I don't see what Grace has to do with what you put forth?

Please remember. THIS is what I follow as I believe in Jesus/Isa...this is honestly what I believe his teaching was/is...

I don't see how this concerns me personally?
Every soul is held in pledge by its own deeds!

Human beings are to express singular worship of and submission to the One Uncreated Creator by a) thanksgiving, adoration and glorification to the Creator and b) works of loving-kindness and compassion to others and ourselves. In this, we are also to consecrate ourselves and be holy, compassionate, merciful, and loving because our Creator is holy, compassionate, merciful and loving.

Irrelevant to '' What was the nature of Jesus' (alayhi salam) birth?''

I believe that, Quranically speaking, if I believe that the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is the One Uncreated Creator to whom all submission should take place...I'll be ok.

Ok good for you

All the best

 

[YieldedOne]

Let this be said. I personally am not arguing for God as Trinity per se. I really ain't doing that.

I am asking THIS question:
Is there anything, Quranically speaking, that renders INCONCEIVABLE that the "word" spoken by Allah to Mary was simultaneously an eternal, uncreated "word" of divine self-disclosure that was temporally manifested like unto what is claimed about the Quran itself being eternal and uncreated but temporally manifested?

 

[YieldedOne]

I honestly don't see anything in the Quran...or any discussion that I've ever seen...that eliminates the possibility of what I'm talking about. I'd like to see some, if I could.

Help?