# the last supper



## deepSubDiver (Apr 17, 2010)

i do not mean to offend anyone!


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 17, 2010)




----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 17, 2010)

Sa967St said:


> (Last Supper in cube form vid)


----------



## Bryan (Apr 17, 2010)

deepSubDiver said:


> i do not mean to offend anyone!



I'm offended by the incorrect color scheme, the poor photoshop job, lack of Stackmat timers and displays, and lack of a variety of puzzles.

EDIT: Oh, and your lack of capitalization.


----------



## Johan444 (Apr 17, 2010)

I don't know why but I thought it was funny, gj


----------



## PeterV (Apr 17, 2010)

deepSubDiver said:


> i do not mean to offend anyone!



Then why'd you post? For the record, I was offended by this, as I'm sure many others on the forum are.


----------



## Drax (Apr 17, 2010)

I literally LOL'D

Plus, why would this offend anyone?
It's a joke, please don't make it out to be more than what it is.


----------



## Muesli (Apr 17, 2010)

Bryan said:


> deepSubDiver said:
> 
> 
> > i do not mean to offend anyone!
> ...



Lol.

Also, I lol'd at the pic.


----------



## Mr Cubism (Apr 17, 2010)

This is better


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Apr 17, 2010)

Bryan said:


> deepSubDiver said:
> 
> 
> > i do not mean to offend anyone!
> ...




+ a few.




Mr Cubism said:


> This is better



there were still 2 cubes scrambled the same way, and one with just a mirror scramble. This one _is_ better, though. Good job.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 17, 2010)

this is funny. Why should someone be offended?...


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 17, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> this is funny. Why should someone be offended?...





Spoiler










On topic, there have been many renditions of The Last Supper that have been banned because some some find that it's not right.

Thierry Massis, the representative lawyer of the Cathlic association, said "When you trivialise the founding acts of a religion, when you touch on sacred things, you create an unbearable moral violence which is a danger to our children."


----------



## Stefan (Apr 17, 2010)

PeterV said:


> I was offended by this



Why/how?


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 17, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > this is funny. Why should someone be offended?...
> ...



I see... It's a painting...


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 17, 2010)

What would've been cool is if he had made it so the one with the wrong colour scheme or something betrayed Jesus.

@Stefan: It's basically a your mom joke directed at Christianity.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 17, 2010)

btw that painting has NOTHING to do with Christianity. it's Catholic all the way. I would only be offending if someone said that it's Christianity... lol it's NOT


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> btw that painting has NOTHING to do with Christianity. it's Catholic all the way. I would only be offending if someone said that it's Christianity... lol it's NOT





Wikipedia said:


> Early Christianity observed a ritual meal known as the "agape feast". These "love feasts" were apparently a full meal, with each participant bringing food, and with the meal eaten in a common room. They were held on Sundays, which became known as the Lord's Day, to recall the resurrection, the appearance of Christ to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, the appearance to Thomas and the Pentecost which all took place on Sundays after the Passion. Jude, and the apostle Paul referred to these as "your love-feasts", by way of warning (about "who shows up" to these). Following the meal, as at the Last Supper, the apostle, bishop or priest prayed the words of institution over bread and wine which was shared by all the faithful present.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 18, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > btw that painting has NOTHING to do with Christianity. it's Catholic all the way. I would only be offending if someone said that it's Christianity... lol it's NOT
> ...



Anyone get it?


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > btw that painting has NOTHING to do with Christianity. it's Catholic all the way. I would only be offending if someone said that it's Christianity... lol it's NOT
> ...



I was refering to the painting. Being a Christian I know ALL about the Last Supper. The painting itself though has a lot of Catholic "Myths" (for a lack of a better word) behind it. The painting itself has no significance to Christianity. Period.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> btw that painting has NOTHING to do with Christianity. it's Catholic all the way. I would only be offending if someone said that it's Christianity... lol it's NOT



Catholicism is a branch of Christianity.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 18, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> @Stefan: It's basically a your mom joke directed at Christianity.



How so? I don't understand. And how do you know that's why Peter was offended? Can you read his mind?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > btw that painting has NOTHING to do with Christianity. it's Catholic all the way. I would only be offending if someone said that it's Christianity... lol it's NOT
> ...



+1

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


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > @Stefan: It's basically a your mom joke directed at Christianity.
> ...



When I first read this I thought Peter the disciple, not PeterV, and got confused.


----------



## Tyrannous (Apr 18, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...



+2


----------



## Muesli (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> btw that painting has NOTHING to do with Christianity. it's Catholic all the way. I would only be offending if someone said that it's Christianity... lol it's NOT



Lol que?

"...the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church..."


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 18, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > @Stefan: It's basically a your mom joke directed at Christianity.
> ...



It's like a your mom joke because it's offending Christianity's roots. I don't KNOW that's why Peter was offended, but I can guess that's why by the process of elimination. What other reason would he have?


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > btw that painting has NOTHING to do with Christianity. it's Catholic all the way. I would only be offending if someone said that it's Christianity... lol it's NOT
> ...



False statement. Catholicism is a branch off of Roman Catholicism. Which derives from The Jesuit* religions. Although some beliefs are similiar, as a Christian, I think it is a false religion, meaning it does not follow what I believe the Bible teaches. This is strictly what I believe. I'm not saying that because I believe it, it's right. But it's what the Bible teaches me

* idk if I spelled that right


----------



## Mr Cubism (Apr 18, 2010)

Da vincis "The last supper" maybe should be called "The last solve" after this.


----------



## Muesli (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...



The Roman Catholic church is a Christian movement. I don't understand what there is to argue on this point.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > this is funny. Why should someone be offended?...








Great book, but not quite as good as his others IMO


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

Mr Cubism said:


> Da vincis "The last supper" maybe should be called "The last solve" after this.



lol Win


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

Mr Cubism said:


> Da vincis "The last supper" maybe should be called "The last solve" after this.





Musli4brekkies said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



I'm not going to argue anymore. Seems too much people don't know anything about the issue. Only what the see from the outside and from Wikipedia??


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> Mr Cubism said:
> 
> 
> > Da vincis "The last supper" maybe should be called "The last solve" after this.
> ...



Do you expect people to listen to some home-schooled kid over years of compiled knowledge by thousands of people on Wikipedia and from the outside world?


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

From your tone of wording mister, By golly I guess not.


----------



## Muesli (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...



I'd rather take a wiki's answer on the matter over one persons supposed truth. But I suppose that's what religion is good at, amirite?


----------



## Feryll (Apr 18, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Cubism said:
> ...



Just trying to be a defender here, but calling him a "home-schooled kid" and not conversing in a debate appropriate voice isn't going to solve (lolpun) anything. I, myself, am Christian, and it doesn't matter if Catholicism is a branch off of Christianity, vice versa, or even anciently descended off of satanism. It doesn't make one religion superior over another.

OT: I personally don't find it offending. If it was Jesus in an idiotic pose not being able to solve one, it might be an issue.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2010)

http://www.catholic.org/about/ourmission.php said:


> "Catholic Online" (COL) serves the global Catholic community, other Christians, [...]



Notice the *other* Christians. The implication is that Catholic people count as Christians. Although this isn't a statement from the Church itself, catholic.org seems to be a pretty popular website among Catholics, and I think if Catholicism was truly not a branch of Christianity they'd fix such an obvious error.

Alright, your turn jackdexter75 - please provide a statement from a Catholic organization which says Catholicism is not a part of Christianity


----------



## Mr Cubism (Apr 18, 2010)

It´s not that I want to claim that I know more than other, but Da vinci even made a second cube painting. It was discovered two days ago in Cuba. Here it is:




:fp


----------



## Stefan (Apr 18, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> It's like a your mom joke because *it's offending Christianity's roots.*


How so? It's not saying "Jesus is fat" but "Jesus can solve a Rubik's cube". Aren't these jokes supposed to say something *negative*?



Cyrus C. said:


> I don't KNOW that's why Peter was offended, but I can guess that's why *by the process of elimination*.


Cool. What other possibilities did you eliminate? And can I get a list of all possibilities? Thank you.



Cyrus C. said:


> What other reason would he have?


I don't know. That's why I asked him (and not you, btw).


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.catholic.org/about/ourmission.php said:
> ...



I don't think that's the same at all, and I shouldn't need to explain this to someone like you. There's actually an organization (the US government) which explicitly decides who is American (a citizen) and who isn't. However, when you're talking about an ideology, there's no external organization or force which can objectively say that you follow the ideology or not. There's no Christian Review Board which decides what religions fall under its jurisdiction; unlike with Americans, the only reasonable way to find out if people are Christians is to ask them if they consider themselves Christian. As, again, that seems to be a popular website for Catholics, a statement from their website that Catholicism is part of Christianity can be reasonably taken as a consensus among Catholics.

There's another issue which you bring up, which is that things on the web aren't necessarily true. This is often the case, but as I don't have a library in my house websites will have to do. One of the reasons I thought it was worth mentioning that the site was popular was that an easily-accessible page (such as the "about us" page) would thus be looked at by a lot of people. This indicates that the site basically acts as a representative of Catholic opinions, and so it makes sense to assume that a major belief written on the site is echoed by most Catholics.


----------



## PeterV (Apr 18, 2010)

To all those who commented, I was offended becuase, being a Christian, having the basis of my beliefs (Jesus) portrayed in this way is like making a joke about something that is very important to me. While I know many of you will not agree with me about this particular picture, I would think that most will agree that it's important to be sensative to everyone's beliefs. I try to be sensitive to other's beliefs and I expect the same.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 18, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > It's like a your mom joke because *it's offending Christianity's roots.*
> ...


Copy & pasting images of Rubik's cubes to a meaningful religious portrait, then calling it funny. This painting is important to the roots of many peoples beliefs, & he went & pasted things all over it. Kind of like drawing mustaches & devil horns on a newspaper picture, except the newspaper picture is an important root of your beliefs.



StefanPochmann said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > I don't KNOW that's why Peter was offended, but I can guess that's why *by the process of elimination*.
> ...



You don't want to accept the logical answer? I'll leave this debate & let whoever got offended give us the answer.

EDIT: I started this post before PeterV commented.


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

I'm not really offended. It's a picture of the last supper, but there's Rubik's cubes! Wait, that doesn't make sense, Rubik's cubes weren't invented back then! Ha ha, I get it, it's making a joke by saying the truth is one thing, when really it's another! Hilarity ensues.

It's also fun to think that maybe Jesus would've done this, had it been the 80s at the time.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 18, 2010)

PeterV said:


> I would think that most will agree that it's important to be sensative to everyone's beliefs. I try to be sensitive to other's beliefs and I expect the same.



I disagree. If someone's beliefs are stupid, people should expose that. All beliefs should be critically analyzed.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

Jesus would be sub-5 by now, easy.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 18, 2010)

PeterV said:


> I was offended becuase, being a Christian, having the basis of my beliefs (Jesus) portrayed in this way is like making a joke about something that is very important to me.



I still don't get it. Where exactly is the problem? It doesn't even say something negative but rather something positive. I'm puzzled. I suspect you're offended just because you want to and have nothing better to do.



qqwref said:


> I don't think that's the same at all, and I shouldn't need to explain this to someone like you.


I know, that's why I had deleted the post. Well, the point was that I disagree about that they are Christian just because they say so, and that jack would have to find them saying they aren't, instead of having reasons why they aren't.


----------



## Feryll (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> PeterV said:
> 
> 
> > I would think that most will agree that it's important to be sensative to everyone's beliefs. I try to be sensitive to other's beliefs and I expect the same.
> ...



Define stupid. Obviously it can't be meant literally, as stupid refers to unintelligent sentient beings. The persons ideas are obviously very special to that person, and if it is negatively affecting that person, then you should talk and hopefully convince them out of it. Making jokes or insulting one's ideas has never ended happily or convinced someone of the truth, it only provides temporary happiness for the joke-maker.

But I'm not saying the picture is insulting, btw. And if it is to some people, then I think the whole accusation is overblown, no offence.

EDIT: This was before you changed your post a bit for the better.


----------



## PeterV (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> PeterV said:
> 
> 
> > I would think that most will agree that it's important to be sensative to everyone's beliefs. I try to be sensitive to other's beliefs and I expect the same.
> ...



I agree with you to a point. Certainly outrageous and immoral beliefs should be questioned, but Christianity is widely accepted among many people. The fact that you call my beliefs "stupid" is just plain ignorance.



StefanPochmann said:


> PeterV said:
> 
> 
> > I was offended becuase, being a Christian, having the basis of my beliefs (Jesus) portrayed in this way is like making a joke about something that is very important to me.
> ...



Yes, I've got nothing better to do than sit on a forum arguing with ignorant people who can't just accept that this image may be insensitive to the Christian community. The fact that there is so much controversy in this particular thread proves that it bothers people.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 18, 2010)

PeterV said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > PeterV said:
> ...


Just because Christianity is accepted doesn't mean it's not "stupid."


obtw, the Earth is round.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 18, 2010)

PeterV said:


> Certainly outrageous and immoral beliefs should be questioned, but Christianity is widely accepted among many people. The fact that you call my beliefs "stupid" is just plain ignorance.



Would you mind explaining why Christianity should not be criticized, just because it is 'widely accepted'? It was widely accepted, at one point, that the Earth was flat and that the Sun and the planets orbited the Earth. Should that have not been criticized? If it wasn't, which it seems you advocate, then your religion would have damaged science even more than it already has and continues to do.


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

...not another religious debate...

I don't find the image insulting, but then again I'm not Christian.


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> PeterV said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly outrageous and immoral beliefs should be questioned, but Christianity is widely accepted among many people. The fact that you call my beliefs "stupid" is just plain ignorance.
> ...



How did Christianity damage science?


----------



## Edward (Apr 18, 2010)

Inspired by 4Chan


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> PeterV said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly outrageous and immoral beliefs should be questioned, but Christianity is widely accepted among many people. The fact that you call my beliefs "stupid" is just plain ignorance.
> ...



I fail to see how science and Christianity can't coexist.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Sort of.


----------



## radmin (Apr 18, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> I still don't get it. Where exactly is the problem? It doesn't even say something negative but rather something positive. I'm puzzled. I suspect you're offended
> just because you want to and have nothing better to do.



For all those who are "puzzled", let me "solve" the mystery.  There are many different kinds of Christians. The serious ones actually believe Jesus is God. Let me restate that. Jesus is their God. Not just a figure from their religion's history. In this case, Jesus was used in a parody. There is the problem. Some people find that offensive no matter what the context. I suspect he said he was offended because he was offended.


----------



## radmin (Apr 18, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> ...not another religious debate...
> 
> I don't find the image insulting, but then again I'm not Christian.



He was offended, not insulted.


----------



## PeterV (Apr 18, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> obtw, the Earth is round.



What does this have to do with Christianity?



aronpm said:


> Would you mind explaining why Christianity should not be criticized, just because it is 'widely accepted'? It was widely accepted, at one point, that the Earth was flat and that the Sun and the planets orbited the Earth. Should that have not been criticized? If it wasn't, which it seems you advocate, then your religion would have damaged science even more than it already has and continues to do.



Can you argue against Christianity? Can you prove there is not a God? The fact is that many historians agree that the Bible is a very reliable record of history. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with science. There is nothing in the Bible or that is a part of Christianity that disputes any scientific fact.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html


----------



## radmin (Apr 18, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> obtw, the Earth is round.



The bible says the earth is a sphere.


----------



## blade740 (Apr 18, 2010)

Let's try the wiki page for Christianity instead.



wikipedia said:


> Christianity (from the Greek word Xριστός, Khristos, "Christ", literally "anointed one") is a monotheistic religion[1] based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.[2]
> 
> Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, God having become man and the savior of humanity. Christians, therefore, commonly refer to Jesus as Christ or Messiah.[3]
> 
> Adherents of the Christian faith, known as Christians,[4] believe that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (the part of scripture common to Christianity and Judaism, and referred to as the "Old Testament" in Christianity). The foundation of Christian theology is expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds, which contain claims predominantly accepted by followers of the Christian faith.[5] These professions state that Jesus suffered, died from crucifixion, was buried, and was resurrected from the dead to open heaven to those who believe in him and trust him for the remission of their sins (salvation).[6] They further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven where he rules and reigns with God the Father. Most denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge all humans, living and dead, and grant eternal life to his followers. He is considered the model of a virtuous life, and both the revealer and physical incarnation of God.[7] Christians call the message of Jesus Christ the Gospel ("good news") and hence refer to the earliest written accounts of his ministry as gospels.



Now, if I'm not mistaken, these are all traits of Catholics as well. 

I think you're mistaking "Christianity" with "Protestantism". Christianity refers to all people who believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and accept him as their lord and savior. 

I'm sure most Catholics would be offended if you said they weren't Christians.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 18, 2010)

PeterV said:


> The fact is that many historians agree that the Bible is a very reliable record of history.


[Citation needed]



> Furthermore, this has nothing to do with science. There is nothing in the Bible or that is a part of Christianity that disputes any scientific fact.


Really? 

Genesis claims that humans are descended from two people who lived, iirc, about 6000 years ago. Scientific evidence (from mitochondrial DNA and fossils) tells that modern human 'started' in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago. 

Over 6000 years ago, in around 5300 BD, the Sumerians were already developing their civilization, which lasted for 3000 years.

The Bible claims that god created animals. However, the scientific fact, which we call the 'Theory of Evolution', proves that animals as we know them today evolved from a common ancestor.

When Galileo Galilei proposed his theory that the Earth was spherical and that it orbited the Sun, he was prosecuted by the Church for heresy, and was placed under house arrest. The Church burned any books that disagreed with them. 

I will not provide more examples.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 18, 2010)

PeterV said:


> Can you prove there is not a God?


Can you prove there is *a* God?


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> The Bible claims that god created animals. However, the scientific *fact*, which we call the '*Theory* of Evolution', proves that animals as we know them today evolved from a common ancestor.



Umm...


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> However, the scientific *fact*, which we call the '*Theory* of Evolution'


I just wanted to point that out.


EDIT: Ninja'd.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

PeterV said:


> Can you argue against Christianity?



Yes


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> PeterV said:
> 
> 
> > Can you prove there is not a God?
> ...



How else would everything be created? *Scientifically* it can't just appear.

And learn2emphasize.

EDIT: Unless you're speaking of polytheism, that's completely different. I don't mean to assume.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible claims that god created animals. However, the scientific *fact*, which we call the '*Theory* of Evolution', proves that animals as we know them today evolved from a common ancestor.
> ...





(click on picture)


----------



## aronpm (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible claims that god created animals. However, the scientific *fact*, which we call the '*Theory* of Evolution', proves that animals as we know them today evolved from a common ancestor.
> ...





Cyrus C. said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > However, the scientific *fact*, which we call the '*Theory* of Evolution'
> ...



Let me provide some scientific theories which are facts (or at least have no been falsified by experimentation):
The *Theory* of Gravity
The *Theory* of Electromagnetism
The *Theory* of Evolution
Einstein's *Theories* of Special and General Relativity

Learn what the word 'theory' means in science before you make stupid posts.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > aronpm said:
> ...



Those theories are all widely accepted.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > aronpm said:
> ...





dictionary.com said:


> 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Those theories are all widely accepted.



EXACTLY, THATS THE POINT



Chapuunka said:


> dictionary.com said:
> 
> 
> > 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.






dictionary.com said:


> 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Hyprul 9-ty2 said:
> 
> 
> > PeterV said:
> ...


You bold-ed the wrong bit. Can you prove that God created everything instead of just arguing against the opposite?


----------



## Ton (Apr 18, 2010)

Bryan said:


> deepSubDiver said:
> 
> 
> > i do not mean to offend anyone!
> ...



The standard color scheme is from 2000, so back then there where lot's of color scheme. I assume timing was done in those days by counting


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Cyrus C.;364097[QUOTE=dictionary.com said:
> 
> 
> > 1. a coherent group of general *propositions* used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.



I see fact nowhere in there.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > Cyrus C.;364097[QUOTE=dictionary.com said:
> ...



So you're going to reject a definition because you don't understand how it applies to this case...?


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Hyprul 9-ty2 said:
> ...



What I'm saying is that if you're going to put your faith in science, then you have to assume science will explain everything. Science hasn't explained how matter began. I'm willing to put my faith in the *Christian* God, Who has explained where everything started.

Although I think putting your faith in science is much more difficult, so if you honestly, 100% believe that, I'll have to give you props. I find it much harder to believe because there's so much more you have to assume.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Ethan Rosen said:
> ...



I was showing that theory isn't fact, and shouldn't be treated like it is. If there's something I'm missing, please explain it to me.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



see:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=364095&postcount=66


----------



## radmin (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > aronpm said:
> ...



:fp some one never took Physics.


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> PeterV said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is that many historians agree that the Bible is a very reliable record of history.
> ...



I'd just like to say a few words against each of those things. 

On the time thing, you're assuming time is linear, and constant, the scenario that is the only thing that carbon dating would work with. We have not yet proved time is constant. I doubt we can.

On the second, are you sure you aren't assuming that the theory of evolution is any more credible than the theory of creation?

On the third, are the church and christianity really the same thing?
While the Bible doesn't deny the earth is spherical, it CAN if misinterpreted.

EDIT: Yes. The Theory of Gravity is actually the LAW of Gravity. The theory is evolution is a THEORY. It is partially proven and supported, but we still don't know for sure if it's true yet.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> see:
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=364095&postcount=66



I fail to see how a compilation of facepalms that create some form of unidentifiable animal proves evolution. Or maybe I'm interpreting this the wrong way.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> I'm willing to put my faith in God, Who has explained where everything started.



You're forgetting, though, that Batman created God. And as a fan of Batman, I'm actually offended now.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 18, 2010)

radmin said:


> :fp some one never took Physics.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > see:
> ...



They create Captain Picard facepalming
the facepalms all evolved to make a super facepalm


----------



## Stefan (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> I fail to see how a compilation of facepalms that create *some form of unidentifiable animal*



Get new glasses.


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> I'd just like to say a few words against each of those things.
> 
> On the time thing, you're assuming time is linear, and constant, the scenario that is the only thing that carbon dating would work with. We have not yet proved time is constant. I doubt we can.
> 
> ...



Is the existence of God at least partially proven and supported?

Are you saying that 6000 years = 200,000 years? Your argument makes no sense at all. And Einstein has proved that time is not constant, it is relative to the velocity of the observer.

And note how the second and fourth argument are contradictory?

And note how you avoided answering the question regarding Galileo?


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> radmin said:
> 
> 
> > :fp some one never took Physics.



That picture hurt my eyes.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 18, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > I'm willing to put my faith in God, Who has explained where everything started.
> ...



If you were seriously believe that, I would respect your ideals, though definitely not agree.

People have crazy beliefs and I think they should be taken seriously whether you agree with them or not. It all comes down to how you perceive the world and are willing to interpret it, and if you're not going to change you're not going to change. If you believe something, I'm willing to let you believe that, I just wanted to show where I was from and how I saw things.

But now I must sleep.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 18, 2010)

Sorry Innocence, I forgot that you can't read properly.

It says "Physics", then "A", then "Excellent" (work ethic) , then "Yes" (all work completed?) and then "40/40". 

I hope that clears things up!

Yours sincerely,
Aron


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



If I believe in Fascism and racial superiority would people take me seriously and not arrest me?


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > I'd just like to say a few words against each of those things.
> ...



Edit: Aron, don't be a smart ass.


----------



## radmin (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> radmin said:
> 
> 
> > :fp some one never took Physics.



When I took it it was a law.




Maybe they'll cover it next semester.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...


----------



## Edward (Apr 18, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



Only if you put your beliefs into practice (Publicly)


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



Not gonna argue with you about the first point...there is no point

I did not because the velocity of Earth is minuscule compared to the speed of light it can be completely disregarded. Therefore we can say that time is indeed constant and linear.



Wikipedia said:


> The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with more than a billion members.


Don't you think that the world's largest christian church represented christianity?


----------



## aronpm (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Yes. There is plenty of evidence that there is a sentinent being, probably the Judeo-Christian God. Of course, the majority of evolutionists fail to recongnize this evidence, because they're "right". Not really. Apparently it's not scientific as it's illogical(miracles, etc.). What we need to realize is that if God is real, then EVERYTHING is "illogical".(Not to the true meaning of the word)



Jesus christ what the ****, are you retarded? There's no evidence for a god, let alone the judeo-christian god. you guys are so ****ing retarded i'm going to stop posting in this thread. you're an idiot, miracles are not evidence, because they are not true and not logical. god, im done here.


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Edward said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



So people would respect me if I'm fascist but don't practice it publicly? That makes no sense at all.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. There is plenty of evidence that there is a sentinent being, probably the Judeo-Christian God. Of course, the majority of evolutionists fail to recongnize this evidence, because they're "right". Not really. Apparently it's not scientific as it's illogical(miracles, etc.). What we need to realize is that if God is real, then EVERYTHING is "illogical".(Not to the true meaning of the word)
> ...


OH SNAP


----------



## Edward (Apr 18, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Neo63 said:
> ...


Why not?


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2010)

First off the word "theory" in a scientific context means nothing more than the currently best proposed explanation for how one part of the world works. If there is evidence against it it gets thrown out. This is as true for evolution as it is for gravity. There's no accepted evidence against either, so they're both still theories. This is the way science works: for now you can treat them as facts, but if a new theory comes along you switch to that one. That way there is no dogma in science and no "faith" is required: you are literally believing in the best known explanation, precisely because it has the most evidence. Most theories - such as evolution! - are also predictive in that they tell you what WILL happen if you do a new experiment. Gravity tells you that objects will fall towards Earth and if you try it you will see the theory of gravity is correct. Evolution tells you that (among other things) a population of single-celled organisms will change to adapt to the environment, and if you try it you will see that this is true. The fact is, even if God DID create everything, it is illogical to not accept the theory of evolution.



Innocence said:


> Yes. There is plenty of evidence that there is a sentinent being, probably the Judeo-Christian God. Of course, the majority of evolutionists fail to recongnize this evidence, because they're "right". Not really. Apparently it's not scientific as it's illogical(miracles, etc.). What we need to realize is that if God is real, then EVERYTHING is "illogical".(Not to the true meaning of the word)


This doesn't make any sense and sounds exactly like conspiracy theorist BS. For instance:


lol said:


> There is plenty of evidence that there is a sentinent being, probably aliens. Of course, the majority of skeptics fail to recongnize this evidence, because they're "right". Not really. Apparently it's not scientific as it's illogical(UFOs, etc.).


I'm not even going to bother with your last sentence because it is just laughable.



Innocence said:


> I didn't, but I obviously overestimated you. What I was saying, is that just because the church persecuted [Galileo] doesn't mean that christianity did.


Uhh.


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



I don't think insulting other people's beliefs is the way to go here but I'm frustrated as well... This debate has been going on for centuries and I don't think a bunch of cubers arguing/swearing over this is gonna solve p) anything at all.


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. There is plenty of evidence that there is a sentinent being, probably the Judeo-Christian God. Of course, the majority of evolutionists fail to recongnize this evidence, because they're "right". Not really. Apparently it's not scientific as it's illogical(miracles, etc.). What we need to realize is that if God is real, then EVERYTHING is "illogical".(Not to the true meaning of the word)
> ...



Ya, things that happen don't happen. (Look, I *could* argue better. )



That other guy said:


> Therefore we can say that time is indeed constant and linear.



But was it always constant and linear?


----------



## Faz (Apr 18, 2010)

The answer is to not start a thread with a reference to religion.


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Edward said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Because fascism is wrong? and same things goes with racial superiority... the last thing that this world need is another holocaust


----------



## Edward (Apr 18, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Neo63 said:
> ...



Don't practice in public= Barely anyone will know about your beliefs.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> But was it always constant and linear?



WHY YES, YES IT WAS
YOU ARENT BEING CLEVER
THIS IS A HAIKU


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> That other guy said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore we can say that time is indeed constant and linear.
> ...



way to not quote my name...

astrophysics and astronomy tells us yes, tracing back to wayyy before life existed on Earth


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

Ethan: I think you're a douche too. And you're DEFINITELY not being clever.

Faz: Pretty much summed it up.

Everyone else: I give up. Not because I'm wrong, because of this: "If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon."

I've figured that it's pretty much true, and that people in general are douches about what they believe. I've resolved to give up forum religion debates many times, but I'm making it public. So stop me next time.

I know this could also apply in real life, but I care enough about my real life friends to actually try to convince them. Also talking is faster.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



Oh? You can?

PS: The reason people don't accept miracles is not because it isn't scientific but because, well, how do you know it happened at all? It's a much more convincing explanation to say that someone imagined/dreamt/hallucinated their religious experience than that it physically happened, and much more likely too.


----------



## radmin (Apr 18, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> The answer is to not start a thread with a reference to religion.



Yes! 
Does any one else think it's ironic that the guy who started the thread hasn't posted anything other than the initial post.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Everyone else: I give up. Not because I'm wrong, because of this: "If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon."



Sorry, you can't just win an argument by going "you're dumb". Most people who are not religious are perfectly willing to change their views, but obviously they will only do so if you provide enough evidence to be convincing. Saying "there is evidence" is not enough and saying "just read the Bible" is not enough.

Please provide the equivalent (in terms of believing in God) of some of the evidence you have discussed above:
- a photograph of God, or of someone meeting God
- an interview with God, or with someone who met God
- I don't know what the equivalent of moon rocks would be lol
Any obviously fake evidence would be thrown out, as in the case of the moon thing. But there IS real provable evidence that people landed on the moon; the question is whether there is actual evidence of God's existance. I think there isn't. If you want to convince people that God exists, why not post some actual evidence? Is it that you don't have any?


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > aronpm said:
> ...



I know, I know, I said I'd stop.

How I know that America exists? I've never been there, all I have is people's testimonies, many historical accounts, and (possibly photoshopped) images.

Edit: What I've said just before is sufficient to refute most of the above post. For everything else that you said:

text text blah text

tl:dr: The sad truth - I can't be bothered.


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Ethan: I think you're a douche too. And you're DEFINITELY not being clever.
> 
> Faz: Pretty much summed it up.
> 
> ...



Would you oppose the possibility of the non-existence of God?


----------



## Edward (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



But you can travel to america right now if you wanted to >.>
(If you haven't noticed, I'm remaining neutral)


----------



## dannyz0r (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



How do you know you're really in Australia? Maybe everybody is plotting against you and just feeding you lies and you're really in America.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...


Oh wow you're so mature, when I grow up I want to be just like you!
At least admit that you're giving up. Btw America doesn't exist, the only continent that exists is Japan.


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Ethan: I think you're a douche too. And you're DEFINITELY not being clever.
> ...



You're not helping with my pledge to not participate.

And I would, but I can't. How can we possible exist without something to create us. Sure though, apart from the initial creation, if you can show me something to counter all the years of evidence and revelation I've seen, I'll be willing to consider it.

At Above post: That was almost as mature as my post. FYI, I DID admit that I was giving up. Just not that I was wrong.


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



If you think like that, nothing exists, not even yourself, everything is an illusion. reminds me of a clip of a movie someone posted here a while ago.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> How I know that America exists? I've never been there, all I have is people's testimonies, many historical accounts, and (possibly photoshopped) images.
> 
> Edit: What I've said just before is sufficient to refute most of the above post. For everything else that you said:
> 
> ...



tl;dr: I don't have any evidence for God, but my parents told me, so it MUST be true! And even if God was true I bet you'd never believe it. Stupid atheists. I'm better than you because I can believe silly things even with no evidence at all!


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



Neither can I. If you can prove to me that God exists, NOT from someone's account of something that they saw or some coincidence with the Bible, then I'm willing to reconsider as well.

btw ever heard of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Russell's teapot?


----------



## JBCM627 (Apr 18, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Neo63 said:
> ...


They do?


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> At Above post: That was almost as mature as my post. FYI, I DID admit that I was giving up. Just not that I was wrong.


I oppose that possibility, as far as I know, you were lying, and your display of moon rocks will not save you!


----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 18, 2010)

even if there was proof it is up to you to believe it or not.

end of story.

now i need food.


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

JBCM627 said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



That time is constant and linear from the beginning of life and onward, yes. The velocity of Earth did not ever come close to the speed of light in that time period.

Okay well that is again, a theory as discussed above. Please do not argue that it's not true, it is supported by more scientific evidence than the existence of God.


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

Ya I agree with rachmaninovian.

And to QQwref: This is why I don't bother.

Me: "evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence"
Someone else: "Ya but you forgot to give evidence."

Slightly exaggerated. What's annoying is the atheists think that they can make certain assumptions based on nothing, but christians can't make other assumptions based on nothing.

Oh and did I say I'm stopping? For real this time.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Ethan: I think you're a douche too. And you're DEFINITELY not being clever.
> 
> Faz: Pretty much summed it up.
> 
> ...



Amen. This is why I stopped posting. This Thread is not worth posting on. Just a bunch of arrogant douches who aren't willing to listen and are only posting to "prove" they are "right" or to get there own way. not everyone though.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 18, 2010)

can i has another 4sentences before disappearing to prepare for my mock AP calculus BC exam tomorrow?

you atheists have to have faith in what you believe too. 
by believing in what you believe in you are having faith.

okay i need cheese crackers now


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Ethan: I think you're a douche too. And you're DEFINITELY not being clever.
> ...



I'm willing to admit that I'm one of those too. And we all have some evidence, but I'm still right. .

Now I need some hugs. Lol, I'm not at all well, and probably taking this more seriously than I should.


----------



## DcF1337 (Apr 18, 2010)

[email protected] people arguing based on mere opinion


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



haha I think it's a very important issue, that will never be setteled until Christ second coming. and we are all judged. lol. What do you believe? h
haha I think I'm pretty douchey but oh well. 

*air hug*....*over a few thousand miles*


----------



## Mr Cubism (Apr 18, 2010)

About Jesus I can say only this; if he has existed, he has. If not, he hasn´t.
The same about miracles etc etc. I have not met him in person, so I can not verify anything about it. Sorry


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> aha I think it's a very important issue, that will never be setteled until Christ second coming. and we are all judged. lol



the Halting Problem
Jesus Edition


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

qqwref said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > aha I think it's a very important issue, that will never be setteled until Christ second coming. and we are all judged. lol
> ...



lol. huh?


----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



i can give you hugs


----------



## Dene (Apr 18, 2010)

Gah

You guys have got to stop having religious debates while I'm at work


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 18, 2010)

Dene said:


> Gah
> 
> You guys have got to stop having religious debates while I'm at work


Missing out on the fun? 

@jackdexter75: I not a Christian, am I are going to the hell?


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Gah
> ...


 
Sorry to say, it's what the Bible says. So I believe it. Don't flame


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> Hyprul 9-ty2 said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...


Lmao


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Apr 18, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> Hyprul 9-ty2 said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



I believe you're going to hell


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > Hyprul 9-ty2 said:
> ...



mmk


----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 18, 2010)

OMG HELL = ETERNAL FIRE

REPENT NAO OR I'D COOK YOU INSTEAD. MAKES ME NICE SANDWICHES AND HELPS YOU ESCAPE HELLFIRE BARBECUE WHICH WILL JUST CARBONIZE YOU OR SUMTIN


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 18, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> OMG HELL = ETERNAL FIRE
> 
> REPENT NAO OR I'D COOK YOU INSTEAD. MAKES ME NICE SANDWICHES AND HELPS YOU ESCAPE HELLFIRE BARBECUE WHICH WILL JUST CARBONIZE YOU OR SUMTIN


Make me a sammich woman!


----------



## Andreaillest (Apr 18, 2010)

Oh, goody! Another religion thread gone out of hand!


----------



## dada222 (Apr 18, 2010)

Lmao.


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

Who labelled it a religion thread? I thought it was showing off that funny pic?


----------



## Andreaillest (Apr 18, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Who labelled it a religion thread? I thought it was showing off that funny pic?


True, but it did take a left turn into a full blown debate about religous beliefs. I just like to sit and watch all the bickering.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 18, 2010)

AndreaBananas said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Who labelled it a religion thread? I thought it was showing off that funny pic?
> ...


You missed the show then


----------



## (X) (Apr 18, 2010)

This image has nothing to do with my beliefs.
For me this thread shows that christians are idiots who can't take a joke.

EDIT: hmm, it won't show the image


----------



## Zane_C (Apr 18, 2010)

I haven't read through this, but is this another religeos debate going on?


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 18, 2010)

Interesting thread. It shows that speedsolving is just as any other forum...

Why do people even get into these dicussions?
Both sides will never agree so why even try?

Can we now please move on to less controversial subjects like pro / contra guns or abortion?


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2010)

(X) said:


> This image has nothing to do with my beliefs.
> For me this thread shows that christians are idiots who can't take a joke.
> 
> EDIT: hmm, it won't show the image



How? We had maybe 1 person that was actually offended. The others were anticipating offense and arguing about it. Please don't make generalizations like that, they could be offensive.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 18, 2010)

PeterV said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > obtw, the Earth is round.
> ...



Erm, historically, (not recently to the same degree, ) every time someone made a scientific discovery that even slightly contradicted what "the church" stated, they were punished, in the form of death or banishment.

Kind of relating, many people (religious fanatics of the middle age) felt the need to go against science, and say otherwise. The religion itself did no harm, but the people representing the religion did.


----------



## Muesli (Apr 18, 2010)




----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 18, 2010)

this thread is lame >_>

and though im christian i'm kinda amused by the picture ^^


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 18, 2010)

+1 for the pic

This thread should stop...I'm not participating in another religion thread


----------



## jackdexter75 (Apr 18, 2010)

Pic wins. lol. Shelly should close this Thread.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Apr 18, 2010)

Geeze, just close the thread. It is like a spam thread on the front page.


----------



## dannyz0r (Apr 18, 2010)

Insert more posts here requesting to close this thread because of spam to bring this back up.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2010)

You guys have no idea how to close a thread.


----------



## Logan (Apr 18, 2010)

Here we go again...


----------



## zachtastic (Apr 18, 2010)

Christianity finally makes sense now! Jesus was crucified because he was the only one who could solve the cube! ..notice his "check out the cube" hands while the other apostles sit in utter amazement!


----------



## brunson (Apr 19, 2010)

Kirjava, LOL. Is that your version of Godwins Law? Now I have to close it. ;-)

Seriously, it's just degenerated into silliness. I'm glad no one got abusive or (very) insulting, but there's nothing useful being contributed and it's just become a distraction. You may now resume your regularly scheduled discussion of the avatar above your post.


----------

