Member Questionnaire (Director Abbie)

[rat1]

Fossils exist because of the flood. Most of the animals on the planet were suddenly covered in mud. They didn't have time to be exposed and rot. Even if scavengers had been around they couldn't reach them. And the mud had minerals in it that fossilized the skeletons after a few years.

When I was in school, the biology textbook had a picture of funny-looking horses. I'm assuming that's what you're referring to. Well, Noah only had room for two of each species on the ark, except for a few special cases of clean animal that he took 7 of. He took 2 horses and the rest died. A lot of genetics were lost to the world. There were so many breeds, and now we have only those that came from those two he brought. But I'll bet you don't find many funny cow skeletons we don't have animals similar to today, 'cause Noah got to take 7 of them.

Many of the fossils I refer to were aquatic species which would have been totally unaffected by a flood. According to carbon dating the fossils cover a period of billions of years, are found in many different layers of mud, and show a slow tiered progression of complexity in species. The species found in the fossil record are distinct species from those alive today. A certain funny looking horse is not what we are dealing with.
There are no fossils of todays current species in their identical forms. There are some fossils which resemble todays species, but there are still major differences between them (like with the horses). The vast majority of todays species are not found fossilized in a form that might resemble their current one. Had species not changed form, we should find some fossils of all species mostly unchanged from their current forms.
Even if we imagine the flood somehow extinguished the aquatic species as well as the land species, such an event could only result in minor evolution.
The animals Noah took on his ark were (allegedly) the same species as those facing extinction. That same species which went in, more or less, would be the one which came out. This is true by your own premise - that major evolution is impossible.
Such a minor evolution could never approach explaining the differences between todays species and those species found in the fossil record.

There actually is evidence that a major flood happened around Noahs time, but not that it covered the entire world (I doubt there's even enough water on earth for that to happen):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_S...uge_hypothesis

[xerx]

I'm not sure what your question is. I think of the trinity as a green triangle. Three sides, three people, make up the greenness. But each is green on its own. and nothing else in the universe is truly green. But since humans were made after God's image we're sort of teal, which is still more green than anything else. Does that answer your question, whatever it was?

Sorry, I'll rephrase it. Do you believe that the human part of Christ could be separated from his divine part (the Logos)? So, Jesus would have been an individual that was a collection of divine and human attributes that were loosely connected. Instead of being entirely godlike, Jesus would have been partly human and partly divine.

Or do you believe that Christ was entirely (or mostly) divine?

If you believe the second, does being fully a God (rather than a fragile human) cheapen the suffering he had to endure on the cross?

[Absurd]

Sorry, I'll rephrase it. Do you believe that the human part of Christ could be separated from his divine part (the Logos)?

Allah have mercy on crazed rat, for he just compared thought to Jesus. I'm sure you're equating yourself with Sophia, your divine part, crazed. If that's the case, knock yourself out.

Har dee har?

Oh shit, sorry mate, I thought you'r crazed rat, xerx. No offence.

[xerx]

Allah have mercy on crazed rat, for he just compared thought to Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Christianity

I'm sure you're equating yourself with Sophia, your divine part, crazed. If that's the case, knock yourself out.

Do you ever get tired of accusing other people of narcissism?

[Absurd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Christianity

Post the bit where someone writes something about mistranslations form Aramaic to Latin and from Latin to English while you're at it. Seriously, it's not hard to think. Jesus said: "If you have Logic, you can not err."

Do you ever get tired of accusing other people of narcissism?

Do you ever get tired of accusing other people of narcissism?

[xerx]

Post the bit where someone writes something about mistranslations form Aramaic to Latin and from Latin to English while you're at it. Seriously, it's not hard to think. Jesus said: "If you have Logic, you can not err."

Why don't you do it since you're so hung up on it?

Do you ever get tired of accusing other people of narcissism?

Yes, I obviously do.

[Absurd]

Why don't you do it since you're so hung up on it?

Yeah, I'm so hung up to prove something and perform Hulk smash on my opponents I forget what am I linking and just post articles claiming aliens salvaged in Space are cure for AIDS.

Yes, I obviously do.

Good for you, stand against Gilly and let the better man win.

[DirectorAbbie]

Sorry, I'll rephrase it. Do you believe that the human part of Christ could be separated from his divine part (the Logos)? So, Jesus would have been an individual that was a collection of divine and human attributes that were loosely connected. Instead of being entirely godlike, Jesus would have been partly human and partly divine.

Or do you believe that Christ was entirely (or mostly) divine?

If you believe the second, does being fully a God (rather than a fragile human) cheapen the suffering he had to endure on the cross?

I would say Christ is entirely human and entirely divine simultaneously and that the two could not be separated. But then I remember something that happened on the cross and I wonder...(I need to look this up.)

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
-Matthew 27:46

Why would he say this? Why would God forsake him? Was he speaking to his Father, or God as in the trinity, including himself that is God? Both? I don't know.
Either way, it is Jesus's humanity that is important. He was a fragile human. Being God means He could be less fragile if He chose, but he didn't.

[xerx]

I would say Christ is entirely human and entirely divine simultaneously and that the two could not be separated. But then I remember something that happened on the cross and I wonder...(I need to look this up.)

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
-Matthew 27:46

Why would he say this? Why would God forsake him? Was he speaking to his Father, or God as in the trinity, including himself that is God? Both? I don't know.
Either way, it is Jesus's humanity that is important. He was a fragile human. Being God means He could be less fragile if He chose, but he didn't.

I understand this is probably the view many (most?) Christians hold, but do you see a logical contradiction? If Christ's Godhood and humanity were completely intermixed then God also died on the cross, tossing aside God's claim to immortality. If it was only the human part of him that died, then the human and the divine parts must be separable for the death to affect one but not the other.

[Absurd]

Ehhh, people are trolling in this thread again. Hkkmr, I think time is ripe you remove from this film so I can die for trolls again. And accept Jesus, xerx, looks like he's been closer to you thank you think.

[ashlesha]

I understand this is probably the view many (most?) Christians hold, but do you see a logical contradiction? If Christ's Godhood and humanity were completely intermixed then God also died on the cross, tossing aside God's claim to immortality. If it was only the human part of him that died, then the human and the divine parts must be separable for the death to affect one but not the other.

doesn't religion transcend logic? too much for human minds to comprehend etc

maybe you're just curious if it can be logically solved (i kinda am too, now)

[InvisibleJim]

doesn't religion transcend logic? too much for human minds to comprehend etc

maybe you're just curious if it can be logically solved (i kinda am too, now)

It's a classic viewpoint of LII types to view anything which is 'unknown' as simply 'wrong', whereas it is by definition unknown/undefined. Of course, that doesn't explain why some of our Alpha NTs are willing to accept even the most deluded of opinions as scientific fact, I guess they overvalue the applicability and certainty of evidence when the evidence is poor or lacking because they loath uncertainty. Then again, perhaps they are just running low on Ti.

[Saberstorm]

returnofxenu: Are not you THE ASTROLOGER on this forum?

[xerx]

doesn't religion transcend logic? too much for human minds to comprehend etc

maybe you're just curious if it can be logically solved (i kinda am too, now)

You'd be surprised at how much people used to care about this sort of abstract stuff; priests and heretics were excommunicated and killed, there were major rebellions over it and imperial edicts were issued to make one interpretation official. The Nika revolt (a major uprising which killed tens of thousands) started as a sports riot between regular people - those who believed that Christ had a single nature vs. those who believed he had two natures.

People will often try to rationalize their explanations through internal consistency, then segregate into groups that develop intense hatreds for the other's world view.

I guess it's not entirely different from the way we go to war over ideological and political differences, which have almost entirely superseded religion as the arena of combat between mutually exclusive (GHETTO EDIT: and scientifically unproven) belief systems.

[Esaman]

It's a classic viewpoint of LII types to view anything which is 'unknown' as simply 'wrong', whereas it is by definition unknown/undefined. Of course, that doesn't explain why some of our Alpha NTs are willing to accept even the most deluded of opinions as scientific fact, I guess they overvalue the applicability and certainty of evidence when the evidence is poor or lacking because they loath uncertainty. Then again, perhaps they are just running low on Ti.

The only things that are by definition unknowable are things that do not have consequences to be observed, and so for all intents and purposes do not exist in our world.

As for world being fundamentally logical and there for comprehensible.- It is irrational (not in socionic sense) to assume anything different because there is everything to loose and nothing to win by doing such wager against evidence, since mind and everything really would be useless in such absurd world.

All that is obfuscation of simple issue of people believing shit for fallacious reasons and that inevitably having bad consequences.

In thanks for annoying job of explaining premises of search of knowledge instead of doing it, I leave you with indisprovable concept of your face being humped by a spirit of dog right now.

[InvisibleJim]

I leave you with indisprovable concept of your face being humped by a spirit of dog right now.

Why bother, it's equally likely to be being massaged by angels. <3.

I guess it's not entirely different from the way we go to war over ideological and political differences, which have almost entirely superseded religion as the arena of combat between mutually exclusive (GHETTO EDIT: and scientifically unproven) belief systems.

There's always muslims to make us all feel better about Secularism.

[DirectorAbbie]

doesn't religion transcend logic? too much for human minds to comprehend etc

maybe you're just curious if it can be logically solved (i kinda am too, now)

Religion transcend logic? I'm not sure about that. The history of the Bible is supported by archeological evidence, so that's logical. Faith is also logical. If a chair hasn't fallen apart though you've periodically sat in it for the last 5 years, it is logical to have faith in its ability to hold you up if you sit in it. Then again, I believe love is illogical. And God is love. So either love is logical or God is illogical.

I understand this is probably the view many (most?) Christians hold, but do you see a logical contradiction? If Christ's Godhood and humanity were completely intermixed then God also died on the cross, tossing aside God's claim to immortality. If it was only the human part of him that died, then the human and the divine parts must be separable for the death to affect one but not the other.

I don't see the logical contradiction. As I mentioned before, it is possible (though I wouldn't put any certainty to it) that Jesus was separate from God at the time of his death. But I don't see why that is necessary. Either way, Jesus was God at the time of his resurrection. Because obviously humans don't have the power to bring themselves back to life. What is this claim to immortality you refer to?

[xerx]

There's always muslims to make us all feel better about Secularism.

I'm not so sure. Modern wars among Muslims have been significantly less destructive than modern wars fueled by secular ideologies (or political religions?) like nationalism: ww1, ww2, etc.

I don't see the logical contradiction. As I mentioned before, it is possible (though I wouldn't put any certainty to it) that Jesus was separate from God at the time of his death. But I don't see why that is necessary. Either way, Jesus was God at the time of his resurrection. Because obviously humans don't have the power to bring themselves back to life. What is this claim to immortality you refer to?

That God is indestructible and cannot die, applying just as equally to other manifestations of the divine -like the immortal and indestructible human soul.

[DirectorAbbie]

That God is indestructible and cannot die, applying just as equally to other manifestations of the divine -like the immortal and indestructible human soul.

Ah! The soul. God is originally spirit. God's souls and ours are equally immortal. But God took on a mortal body. Why couldn't immortal God's mortal body die just as those of humans can?

[rat1]

returnofxenu: Are not you THE ASTROLOGER on this forum?

Well yes, but that practice isn't based on belief.. you've seen it work for yourself. It is pretty indisputable that it works.
Don't get me wrong. I used to be a christian, and I have alot of respect for the myth and the meaning that it holds. I was indoctrinated by christian parents like you were... I tried to be a christian, but I found I couldn't live up to that standard. I used to loath myself mercilessly.
Then I allowed myself to really think about both sides of the evidence. And I started researching the non religious arguments. I already understand the religious viewpoint very well.. I simply needed to see the contrary evidence.
The more I researched history and the occult origins of christianity, and really allowed myself to see the evidence, the more I became convinced I had been brainwashed. At this point I unquestioningly know it is a myth...

The only reason I insist on bringing this up is I see in christian people this self-loathing self crucifying guilt, and I want to liberate them from that, because they too have been brainwashed. I think this oppression is pretty plain to see in Abby. I consider it religious abuse. I definitely do not think she is an idiot.

In short, the truth will set you free.

[DirectorAbbie]

I think this oppression is pretty plain to see in Abby.

There is no Abby here.

[rat1]

Oh... sin.

[xerx]

Ah! The soul. God is originally spirit. God's souls and ours are equally immortal. But God took on a mortal body. Why couldn't immortal God's mortal body die just as those of humans can?

That sounds vaguely like the position of Apollinarianism, that Jesus' body was human while his mind was divinely-inspired. Those who believe in a unified-nature have often argued that the death of a mere human rather than a divine entity would not have been sufficient to grant salvation. I also see from previous posts, however, that an intrinsic part of your belief-system is the veneration of Jesus as a human being who suffered, making the distinction between a unified vs. seperate nature more or less academic. I wonder if that belief of yours may have been inspired by secular humanism.

I honestly didn't start this line of questioning to be a smart-ass, I was just curious.

There are so many ways to construct an internally-consistent argument that theological debates are as useless as they are futile, btw.

[DirectorAbbie]

divinely-inspired

Divinely-inspired? Meh; nothing so dull. The Bible is divinely-inspired. Prophets were divinely-inspired. Jesus is divine.

death of a mere human rather

It's not a deity dying that mattered; it was the sinlessness. Since we're all sinners, we deserve to die. Someone could choose to take the penalty for us, but if someone tried it would be like someone with a life sentence offering to serve the time of another criminal who had just been given a life sentence. Since Jesus was sinless he was able to be a stand-in without having a life sentence of his own. (And if he had had a human father, he couldn't have been sinless.)

inspired by secular humanism.

I certainly hope not.

[xerx]

Divinely-inspired? Meh; nothing so dull. The Bible is divinely-inspired. Prophets were divinely-inspired. Jesus is divine.

Semantics aside,

It's not a deity dying that mattered; it was the sinlessness. Since we're all sinners, we deserve to die. Someone could choose to take the penalty for us, but if someone tried it would be like someone with a life sentence offering to serve the time of another criminal who had just been given a life sentence. Since Jesus was sinless he was able to be a stand-in without having a life sentence of his own. (And if he had had a human father, he couldn't have been sinless.)

If Jesus was half-human then he couldn't have been sinless.

[DirectorAbbie]

If Jesus was half-human then he couldn't have been sinless.

I never said Jesus was half-human. Jesus was entirely human. And yes, he could have been sinless, because the sin nature is passed through the father. The virgin birth is important.

[xerx]

I never said Jesus was half-human. Jesus was entirely human. And yes, he could have been sinless, because the sin nature is passed through the father. The virgin birth is important.

I see, so you take the interpretation that his lineage never existed before, rendering original sin a non-issue.

[Aquagraph]

Abbie, you're well versed in the teachings of the Bible and I want to suggest you to watch Battlestar Galactica. It's written by a Christian and it has a lot of references to Christian affiliated beliefs.


I know the aversion many people get from science fiction but, believe me, this is something different. Just try watching the pilot and see if you're hooked.quo

PS: Nice Order of the Stick quote.

[rat1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god