The crucifixion was a fraud.

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***We're trying to examine the plethora of Scripture which both affirms and invalidates the Dogma.***

No "we're" not. Some of us are and that's fine. However, some of us are responding in like kind to the logic presented in the initial post.

BTW: Where oh where oh where is Cris' plethora of Scripture?

 

[blonde_cupid]

Godx,

***Thanx for the summation, tiassa. It was a abbreviated summation, as I remember seeing more than 3-4 posts by b-c where she repeated the same thing about "death not being final". And this was despite prompt replies by cris and you saying that it did not matter.***

Hint: Just because they say it doesn't matter doesn't make it true.

It does matter, big time, and they know it. That's where they draw their basis for the relative degree of sacrifice. There is more to it than that, though. Forgive me that I don't have the comprehensive counter-argument drawn up as yet. I'm working on it. However, I've been indulging in some, *ahem*, side considerations with others and it is taking a bit longer than I had originally anticipated.

Patience is a virtue, I think.

 

[blonde_cupid]

Xev,

It might actually be on Easter Sunday that I address some of your questions. How appropriate!

 

[Tiassa]

Yes, Cupid, we do see ....

The “correct” chronology is important when you put forth an erroneous chronological “review” in an attempt to establish that one was not in on the connection that Cris made between death and permanence of sacrifice.

Actually, Blonde Cupid, I have to disagree. You weren't in on it from the first. Your posts prove that all the way through. If there's one thing consistent about your posts it is that you don't seem to know what A) the topic is about, and B) what you, yourself, are talking about.

The fact that, at some point, I asked him a question about that connection is not relevant to what it is that you were attempting to establish. The fact that, at some point, I asked him a question about that connection does not establish that the question was stupid. As you very well know, the question was not asked because I was not in on the connection

Blonde Cupid, what are you talking about? Calm down and take a deep breath.

It was asked because when confronted with a logical counter-argument, Cris denied said connection.

If you huff and you puff it won't knock the argument down. Whether the daughter dies or goes off to Zeta Reticuli does not matter. The idea was the permanent sacrifice. You have, indeed, missed this point from your entry to the topic.

The “correct” chronology is important when you put forth an erroneous chronological “review” in an attempt to establish that a question concerning whether Cris actually meant to make that connection was stupid.

At what point did I claim things happened out of order, Blonde Cupid? See, one of the good things about knowing how to cite the points you're debating against is that we can then establish time. I think anybody reading that post saw the times I put up, and as G0D's post indicates, your harping on chronology is irrelevant to the point at best,

You see, tiassa, the posts which you failed to include in the chronology established with certainty that not only was I in on the connection, but it also provided a valid reason for my having asked a valid question.

Which valid question? The one that you got so upset about the answer? I do not feel the posts in question demonstrate that you were in on the connection, and as G0D has pointed out, my summary of the situation was, indeed, abbreviated:

It was a abbreviated summation, as I remember seeing more than 3-4 posts by b-c where she repeated the same thing about "death not being final". And this was despite prompt replies by cris and you saying that it did not matter.

At that time, I was wondering if b-c somehow missed reading your replies, because she showed no indication of incorporating the info into her posts. And later, she went on to say things like "I am still awaiting your refutation", all the more ridiculous, as it was a point which did not matter at all to the issue at hand (G0D, 3.27.02, 22.28 EST)

Part of it is that at no point have you demonstrated an understanding of what the topic is about. Your focus on chronology here is telling: since the dogmatic approach hasn't worked, you seem to be focusing on me as a poster in order to establish some credibility in this topic. Why? You could have addressed the topic from the get-go and avoided the extraneous pages we've been through trying to explain this most simple of concepts. Here, I'll go back a full week for you, Blonde Cupid, and show you what the crux of the problem is:

***1. Jesus is God (from “They are one in the same God”).
2. Jesus was sacrificed.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead.

If these things were true then...***

If these things were true then Cris' unfounded belief in the absolute permanence of death would be false. (Blonde Cupid, 3.21.02, 17.02 EST)

Now, have you read the portion of my posts about reading a mystery novel? You know, the section that I've recycled for you repeatedly because you don't seem to be acknowledging that it exists? Therein lies the reason why your fixation on death has been inappropriate. Period. And here, I've explained this very concept to you before:

What has happened here is that you, Blonde Cupid, focused on death. Cris' choice to avoid death specifically depends on its actual relevance to the issue: The issue of death and a potential afterlife is irrelevant here. The example is to show the concept of a permanent loss. In your 3.21.02/17.02 post, you fixated on death:

• First, it rests entirely on Cris' unfounded belief that death is permanent and that there is nothing beyond the physical death of the body
• Cris' belief that the death/sacrifice of his daughter would be the end of his daughter leads him to conclude that her sacrifice would be true.
• Ironically, Cris uses his own unfounded belief in the finality of death as the basis of his argument.
• If these things were true then Cris' unfounded belief in the absolute permanence of death would be false.

It would seem that you were missing the point. You chose to fixate on death when the point was permanent loss. This is the reason for Cris' attempt to separate the death issue. It seemed to be a stumbling block to your perception. The continued nature of your posts, though, shows that you, Blonde Cupid are the stumbling block to your perception. (Tiassa, 3.27.02, 05.38 EST)

What don't you get about it?

If the “logical contradiction” was invalid, then there would have been no need for Cris to deny the connection he made between death and permanence of sacrifice... His claim that he intentionally did not use the “word” death has no bearing on the connection he made... You remember that connection... The connection that everyone could see.

Who else is having the difficulties understanding the topic that you are going through? I don't get what you don't understand about the idea that death itself is not the issue.

In this matter, you continue to demonstrate the same sort of blind support which caused you to resort to your Greys story

For the last time, Blonde Cupid, if you don't like the answer, don't ask such stupid freaking questions. We know it's a stupid answer. We've always known that the Greys was a stupid answer. But it was a dumbassed question to begin with put up by a poster (you) who is demonstratively A) without comprehension of the topic, and B) unnecessarily worked up over this point.

Furthermore, what do you care or even care to know about logical contradiction, anyway? After all, examining Cris’ proof was only what he asked us to do. However, when I attempted to stay on that course, you accused me of side-tracking because I did not enter into your discussion of side considerations. Um… That’s a logical contradiction, tiassa. You know, the logical contradiction you haven’t stopped screaming about since I first pointed out the logical contradiction in Cris’ initial attempt at proof.

The logical contradiction is invalid, and this has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions. If you would like to establish the validity of the logical contradiction, address some of the points you've hitherto ignored in your frothing, dogmatic recitation.

Don’t get me wrong about this. I have no problem with your debate with others about more abstract considerations. I only use your term side-tracked to demonstrate the contradictory nature of your objections to my staying the course.

We have no evidence that you've even read those objections, Blonde Cupid. Your behavior at present is quite annoying. Why don't you make a proper resolution of the topic's issues your focus instead of blithering dogma?

Like I said before, Blonde Cupid: Yes, we do. We see very clearly. (Tiassa, 3.25.02, 05.03 EST)

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Cupid ... what is your problem?

No "we're" not. Some of us are and that's fine. However, some of us are responding in like kind to the logic presented in the initial post

Umm ... given that you, Blonde Cupid, have been standing on dogma while we (Cris, MatticiousG, Tiassa, &c) have been discussing the scriptural validity for dogma, I really do wonder who you're including in the "some of us". You do not get to be included yet as having participated in that portion of the conversation. When you are prepared to objectively examine the scriptural basis for the dogma you are insisting on, then you are allowed to use the word "us" as you have. Until then, it's dishonest for you to do so.

You are way out of line, Blonde Cupid.

--Tiassa

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***Actually, Blonde Cupid, I have to disagree. You weren't in on it from the first. Your posts prove that all the way through. If there's one thing consistent about your posts it is that you don't seem to know what A) the topic is about, and B) what you, yourself, are talking about.***

A) I know what the topic is about. The topic is about Cris attempting to prove that the crucifixion was a fraud by claiming that there was no sacrifice.

B) I know what I'm talking about. A serious problem with the attempt at proof is that Cris does not understand the basis of the very thing which he is attempting to prove is fraudulent. That is, Christian sacrifice.

Notably, Cris starts out by looking at the sacrifice from the perspective of the Father "giving" the Son to the world. That was not the perspective of God* the Father with respect to the Christian sacrifice. God* the Father was in the position of "receiving" the sacrifice which was offered.

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that, at some point, I asked him a question about that connection is not relevant to what it is that you were attempting to establish. The fact that, at some point, I asked him a question about that connection does not establish that the question was stupid. As you very well know, the question was not asked because I was not in on the connection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blonde Cupid, what are you talking about? ...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was asked because when confronted with a logical counter-argument, Cris denied said connection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------***

I am talking about your erroneous implication that my question was stupid because I, unlike everyone else, supposedly did not understand the connection that Cris was making about death and permanence of sacrifice.

Cris denied the connection. He could not come up with an alternative analogy which he considered a real and true sacrifice. Why? Because there was no other credible analogy. Oh, yeah, that's when you jumped in to try and bail him out with a real demonstration of us humans making a permanent sacrifice... It happens whenever we give our kids up to the Greys.

That should have settled the issue.

 

[Xev]

Erm, are we discussing the 'worth' of the sacrifice for the Crucifiction, or are we discussing the discussion?

Why don't we discuss what Cris stated on the first page?

1. Jesus is God (from “They are one in the same God”).
2. Jesus was sacrificed.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead.

No problems there? Jesus is either God or the Son of God, it isn't terribly relevent which, in terms of the 'worth' of the 'sacrifice'.

Sacrifice. Permanent loss of something of immense value.

Hence, to destroy, surrender, or suffer to be lost, for
the sake of obtaining something; to give up in favor of a
higher or more imperative object or duty; to devote, with
loss or suffering.

And with a religious angle - look at the root -

Sacrifice \Sac"ri*fice\ (?; 277), n. [OE. sacrifise, sacrifice,
F. sacrifice, fr. L. sacrificium; sacer sacred + facere to
make

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict query 'sacrifice'.

All clear there? A loss or suffering in order to gain somthing higher.

Proof 1

1. God is immortal; he cannot die.
2. Jesus is God (from assumptions already acknowledged).
3. Therefore Jesus cannot die; i.e. he cannot die through sacrifice.

Jesus can be either God or the Son of God....it has little bearing whether God is sacrificing Himself to Himself (wtf?!) or sacrificing His son to Himself. Jesus is still immortal.

Any problems there? Good.

Proof 2

1. Sacrifice means a permanent loss.
2. Jesus was raised from the dead.
3. Therefore if Jesus came back then he wasn’t permanently lost.
4. If he wasn’t permanently lost then there was no sacrifice.

This is weaker than the other two proofs, for reasons Blonde Cupid pointed out.

Sacrifice can refer to the pain Jesus endured during the Crucifiction. Willingly suffering in the service of somthing more important can constitute a sacrifice.

Yet if Cris is down a bishop with this proof, he is still up by a rook because:

Proof 3

1. For a sacrifice to have meaning then the entity making the sacrifice must experience suffering at the loss, as a human would suffer if they sacrificed their loved child.

2. God is omniscient; has perfect knowledge of all future events.

3. If Jesus died then God would know that Jesus would be back 3 days later.

4. If God knew that Jesus would be back very shortly then he would not have experienced any meaningful degree of suffering.

5. If God did not suffer then the emotionalism and alleged sadness of his loss is a fraud, it simply could not happen.

This would seem to be correct. Of course, it gets into whether one believes that God feels emotions....the Biblical God certainly seems to feel jealousy and hate. So, even if He does feel emotions, any sadness would be the result of a temporary separation.

I would submit a fourth proof:

1: God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knows everything and can do everything.
2: If He can do everything, he did not have to sacrifice His Son or Himself. He could have easily 'redeemed mankind' in some way that did not involve suffering, and it would have had the same worth.
3: Therfore, God choose to suffer needlessly.
4: This weakens the value of the 'sacrifice'.

As Tiassa noted, a tie would have been nice. So would, of course, a BMW 325ci.

Nicer still would be, oh, maybe a word or two to the people who kill in the name of God 'Hey, you are not doing my will, bugger off or I will rain fire and brimstone!' Or a respite from all the nasty diseases that plauge us. Or, say, an advance warning on September 11th - hell, he could simply 'smite' Bin Ladin and Co before they had attacked the US.

 

[Tiassa]

Well, at least we see part of the problem.

Blonde Cupid

At least I see part of the problem:

A) I know what the topic is about. The topic is about Cris attempting to prove that the crucifixion was a fraud by claiming that there was no sacrifice

You're making it so personal that you're not seeing the topic clearly. You still, therefore, do not know what the topic is about. The description I've quoted above is an inadequate definition of the topic.

So I'm going to digress a moment and something you wrote a couple of days back (3.25.02, 03.58 EST):

Oh. Thanks, tiassa.... The Greys, huh? Now, why didn't stupid li'l ol' me think of that? See what happens when I sacrifice my intellect? I just couln't think clearly and got sidetracked into thinking that Cris was talking about death. Now I see that it must have been the Greys, because according to Cris ....

Why, oh, why did you cross topics in anger? Especially when you were having so much trouble grasping both topics to begin with? I mean, really.

• The sacrifice of the intellect, technically, is supposed to be a good thing in God's eyes, per Loyola. To what degree, though? Christianity teaches to assume the worst in people and pray for the best from God. Look at what that does. The natural distrust you show people is a direct result of the notion that people are inherently sinful (negative) and require salvation. When the sacrifice of the intellect is a bad thing, it is because intellect is sacrificed unto God in bad faith. It is more important for you to win an argument than honestly consider the points being put in front of you, and I just don't get how that reflects God's will for your life. It is this sort of functional difficulty that makes many infidels view Christianity as a sketchy philosophy that destroys intellect. My own take on it is that you've simply accepted the cosmic duality of things on faith and thus are taking things far too personally. Your own focus is on what Cris is "attempting" to do, despite the fact that he is merely raising a ne'er-settled question of faith. It's an age-old principle and you're just mad so you're attacking the vessel of its delivery. Kinda Roman, eh? Something about the bearers of bad news? Perhaps you missed my initial response to the topic, where I included some historical insight to the issue. After all, the Nicene Creed was written around this faith issue. Does it change the issue at all because it is Cris that is addressing it?

Don't think so narrowly. Open your perception up a little bit; be honest in your faith.

B) I know what I'm talking about. A serious problem with the attempt at proof is that Cris does not understand the basis of the very thing which he is attempting to prove is fraudulent. That is, Christian sacrifice.

I have not seen you demonstrate any serious problems with the proofs provided. I've seen you stand on dogma without considering the scriptural points at hand, I've seen you apparently ignore those portions of posts which address your dogmatic counterpoints, and I've seen you throw a hissy-fit or two. But I have not seen you demonstrate any real problem with the proofs.

And again we see you attacking the vessel of delivery. Why? Just because nobody before you has resolved the issue definitively? Just because you are incapable of examining the integrity of your own dogmatic position?

Notably, Cris starts out by looking at the sacrifice from the perspective of the Father "giving" the Son to the world. That was not the perspective of God* the Father with respect to the Christian sacrifice. God* the Father was in the position of "receiving" the sacrifice which was offered.

Both the father and the son are addressed by various proofs. However, I'll try it with as short of words as I can find:

• The Dad so loved us that he gave his little boy.
• We can examine the sacrifice (not ritual, but emotional, as per John 3.16) made by God.
• We see that the Dad did not make endure any particular emotional sacrifice on behalf of humanity, per the proofs and other posts.

per the Boy:

• The boy had special powers that offer him comfort against the human condition.
• We see that the powers can allow the reduction of suffering compared to the human condition.
• We see that the Boy did not suffer as a human being would suffer, per the proofs and other posts.

per the sacrifice:

• We see that somebody (Jesus?) offered a sacrifice unto God.
• We see that Jesus was that sacrifice.
• Both the giver (Jesus) and the receiver (God) of the sacrifice have knowledge of its nature, and desire it to be so, and have worked to make it so.
• We see, then, that the sacrifice is a ritual sacrifice.
• We see that, had God so willed, a penny in the fountain would have been adequate, per my posts at least.

Would you like to invent any other ways we could go about this?

I've recycled enough of my posts. If you doubt the above points, I would ask that you read the topic through again, but honestly this time.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh. Thanks, tiassa.... The Greys, huh? Now, why didn't stupid li'l ol' me think of that? See what happens when I sacrifice my intellect? I just couln't think clearly and got sidetracked into thinking that Cris was talking about death. Now I see that it must have been the Greys, because according to Cris ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why, oh, why did you cross topics in anger?***

You think I'm angry? You are way off the mark there. I was pointing out how rediculousness was growing exponentially in your recent posts. You are coming across as desperate.

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***The description I've quoted above is an inadequate definition of the topic.***

According to your standards. Which, sorry, doesn't bother me in the least. I am not as prolific as you are. Nor, do I care to be. That's just you.

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***The sacrifice of the intellect, technically, is supposed to be a good thing in God's eyes, per Loyola.***

Loyola's connotation of the assent of the intellect is not the same as yours and you know it. You admitedly used it in a negative manner. Although your admission might be honest, your representation of the concept in a manner which is not consistent with Loyola's is not.

 

[Tiassa]

Blonde Cupid

You think I'm angry? You are way off the mark there. I was pointing out how rediculousness was growing exponentially in your recent posts. You are coming across as desperate.

If you don't like the ridiculous answers, then why ask the ridiculous questions? Nonetheless, when you are enacting the sacrifice of the intellect through your clinging to dogma in the face of an examination of the underlying scripture and interpretations, it's best not to cross topics. And yes, you do seem angry. This whole topic seems to be more about the posters for you than about the topic itself.

According to your standards. Which, sorry, doesn't bother me in the least. I am not as prolific as you are. Nor, do I care to be. That's just you.

Nobody's asking you to be particularly prolific. All we're asking is that you either take part in this debate honestly or can it.

Loyola's connotation of the assent of the intellect is not the same as yours and you know it. You admitedly used it in a negative manner. Although your admission might be honest, your representation of the concept in a manner which is not consistent with Loyola's is not.

Tell me, Blonde Cupid, is it that you are unwilling or unable to give consideration to

When the sacrifice of the intellect is a bad thing, it is because intellect is sacrificed unto God in bad faith.

Don't bother responding if you're not going to read the posts. That you continue to ignore what people are writing indicates that you have nothing of worth to say. If you feel that you have something of worth to say, you should try saying it with a little more integrity and a little less spite. But this bit where you're just looking for a line to argue with and not reading the actual posts is both expected and typical, in addition to being frustrating and ridiculous. Please find a topic-related issue to discuss and give it your honest consideration or else don't bother posting at all.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[G0D]

Xev,
Good recap. That bmw ... THAT woulda have been somethin' worth talkin' about... A striped tie is a waaaaaaaay distant second, with cruci-fiction somewhere at the bottom of the list.

++++

blonde-cupid,
You insist on giving new fuel to the "dumb blonde" jokes ...

However, since you insist on maintaining your line, why not present the full line of reasoning? Pls present your version of the story, in which the sacrifice, and relative degree of it, is clearly highlighted. Also, point out how, in your opinion, the sacrifice was "ultimate".

Feel free to assume that death is impermanent, or permanent, as you choose ...

 

[Sir. Loone]

JESUS IS ALIVE AND WELL! Beware of Hell!

Jesus's crusxificition was real in history! His birth, life, death, burial and reasurrection was all very true and if not so, the human race is finished! But GOD is a merciful GOD, and Jesus came to Earth to save us from our sins! And He will come again, with GREAT POWER AND GREAT GLORY! And every eye will see Him! He is GOD! He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords! He is the 'Alfa & Omega', the begainning and the end! The Great "I AM!" Will He return unto you as Saviour, or He shall be your finel JUDGE!? Your choice!

Beware the Anti-Christ! The Devil incarnate!! Do take the 'Mark of the Beast' anywhere on your body! He will be destroyed by the Power of GOD, at JESUS's Second Comming!!

But beware! Time is running out!!

 

[Xev]

AntiChrist? Hmph. No worries there, mate.

Cthulhu will kick his ass most rightous. You think some wussy man-goat could stand a chance against Great Cthulhu? Ha!

Great Cthulhu will rise from the waters of R'yleh. His Kingdom will cover the earth. Cthulhu fhtagn!

As for the 'sacrifice of the intellect', was it not Augustine who said:

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. ... It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets that are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which men should not wish to learn. ... In this immense forest, full of pitfalls and perils, I have drawn myself back, and pulled myself away from these thorns. In the midst of all these things which float around me in everyday life, I am never surprised at any of them, and never captivated by my genuine desire to study them. ... I no longer dream of the stars."

His death marked the start of the Dark Ages.

I think you can draw the metaphoric conclusion.

Tiassa: It is hopeless to continue to debate Blonde Cupid on the sort of 'he said, she said' terms that have taken over this discussion. I suggest ignoring the personal dynamics that are threatening to overshadow the debate.

Edited because I was bored and had to add some Cthulhu stuff.

 

[Adam]

Sir Loone, I for one am grateful for your input here. Your clear and obvious grasp of logic is astounding. Your knowledge and use of historical facts is unparalleled. Look, all you unbelievers, let's face the facts. We suck, we're doomed, only Sir Loone and JFC can save us. Thank you Sir Loone!

PS: Yes, I'm being silly.

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,


***Your own focus is on what Cris is "attempting" to do, despite the fact that he is merely raising a ne'er-settled question of faith.***

Well? I think it's an important focus. Cris' attempt could be likened to someone attempting to disprove Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity based on an erroneous assumption that because energy and mass are essentially the same, the theory can be stated as m=Ec2. (Actually, I think this might ultimately prove to be the formula for physical Resurrection but I won’t go too far into that right now).

Einstein had long been convinced that the Principle of Relativity must apply to all phenomena, mechanical or not. Now he found a way to show that this principle was compatible with electromagnetic theory after all. As Einstein later remarked, reconciling these seemingly incompatible ideas required "only" a new and more careful consideration of the concept of time. His new theory, later called the special theory of relativity, was based on a novel analysis of space and time --

Einstein reported a remarkable consequence of his special theory of relativity: if a body emits a certain amount of energy, then the mass of that body must decrease by a proportionate amount. Meanwhile he wrote a friend, "The relativity principle in connection with the Maxwell equations demands that the mass is a direct measure for the energy contained in bodies; light transfers mass... This thought is amusing and infectious, but I cannot possibly know whether the good Lord does not laugh at it and has led me up the garden path." Einstein and many others were soon convinced of its truth. The relationship is expressed as an equation: E=mc².

"In light of knowledge attained, the happy achievement seems almost a matter of course, and any intelligent student can grasp it without too much trouble. But the years of anxious searching in the dark, with their intense longing, their alterations of confidence and exhaustion and the final emergence into the light -- only those who have experienced it can understand it." -- Albert Einstein

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***Tell me, Blonde Cupid, is it that you are unwilling or unable to give consideration to

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the sacrifice of the intellect is a bad thing, it is because intellect is sacrificed unto God in bad faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't bother responding if you're not going to read the posts.***

I read the post and I considered what you said... I found it to be trumped-up justification for your passionate need to recklessly banter a term around in a negtive way because you get your jollies by using "assent of the intellect" in a manner that implies that an entire group of individuals - all Christians - are mindless.

Whoopee!

 

[Tiassa]

Pride is a dangerous master, Cupid

implies that an entire group of individuals - all Christians - are mindless.

And your prideful focus, Blonde Cupid leaves me no need to imply anything. You speak ill of Christian faith, intellect, and integrity by your very attitude in this topic.

Well? I think it's an important focus. Cris' attempt could be likened to someone attempting to disprove Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity based on an erroneous assumption that because energy and mass are essentially the same, the theory can be stated as m=Ec2.

Actually, you're wrong on that. It would be m=E/c2. However, that you think it's an important focus doesn't mean it is. You're making it a personal instead of an intellectual issue. Why does it change the issue because Cris is bringing it up? The issue exists and has since the beginning of this faith. That it is so important to you to fight against Cris or Tiassa instead of addressing the actual issue speaks much of the nature of faith and intellect. You've got a brain, use it. You've got an ego, put it in the back seat.

You know, Blonde Cupid, our friend Xev gave me some good advice:

Tiassa: It is hopeless to continue to debate Blonde Cupid on the sort of 'he said, she said' terms that have taken over this discussion. I suggest ignoring the personal dynamics that are threatening to overshadow the debate.

I shall take that advice until you choose to deal with the topic.

--Tiassa