# Thoughts on "Christian Cuber" or "Atheist Cuber" signatures



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 10, 2010)

This is for all of you who feel the need to put "christian cuber" or "atheist cuber" or "jedi cuber" or "nazi cuber" or whatever the hell else you guys have been putting into your signatures. Just stop it. Nobody cares, nobody wants to see it. Stop trying to divide people by what god you do or don't worship and just accept that we all enjoy a central hobby. Take your religious ramblings somewhere else.


----------



## mark3 (Jul 10, 2010)

+1 to this thread.


----------



## riffz (Jul 10, 2010)

Well I must say that the Atheist cuber signature was more a mockery of the Christian Cuber signature, but yea, it's stupid


----------



## SpUtnikCub3r (Jul 10, 2010)

Finally someone spoke up about this anyway our religion is Speedcubin'


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 10, 2010)

I agree.

I'm perfectly fine with whatever you believe, whether it be the God of the Bible, Satan, a Pie, Waffle, Erik, Buddha, Chuck Norris or whatever. I'm cool with it, but there's no reason to bring it here. It's just frustrating, and like Ethan said, unnecessarily divides the community into different groups.

I do not personally see any connection between cubing and religion unless you rely on some outer-worldly power to solve cubes faster.

So please, take it somewhere else.

~Chris


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jul 10, 2010)

*starts counting down to the explosion*


----------



## oprah62 (Jul 10, 2010)

I think there's no reason to be offended by something they believe in, unless they are constantly provoking it. A simple signature shouldn't offend anyone, and no matter what, something will always offend someone else, but I agree. This is a cube area, keep your sigs clean


----------



## ariasamie (Jul 10, 2010)

I agree.


----------



## mark3 (Jul 10, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> I agree.



Then agree with action, not with words.


----------



## irontwig (Jul 10, 2010)

I can understand ariasamie's signature, I can imagine it's not too easy to be openly agnostic in Iran, but at least (s)he can be so here.


----------



## TeddyKGB (Jul 10, 2010)

I dont see why someone's signature should matter as long as they dont start threads on the topic.


----------



## Sa967St (Jul 10, 2010)

finally.


----------



## mark3 (Jul 10, 2010)

irontwig said:


> I can understand ariasamie's signature, I can imagine it's not too easy to be openly agnostic in Iran, but at least (s)he can be so here.



I don't really think thats the point. People come to a small niche forum like this to get together with others who enjoy the same thing, there is no need to divide ourselves. 

Set any other differences aside, just be cubers.


----------



## ariasamie (Jul 10, 2010)

irontwig said:


> I can understand ariasamie's signature, I can imagine it's not too easy to be openly agnostic in Iran, but at least (s)he can be so here.


I'm 18 male.
Do you know if you say that you don't believe in God in Iran, what will happen to you? DEATH, for sure. Execution (Hanging)


----------



## Innocence (Jul 10, 2010)

This is kinda why I deleted it from my signature. It was fine when it was just kind of a cool thing to identify yourself to other [christians] or [whatever else] but when people started to judge me for that, I felt it necessary to remove it. I'm pretty sure I was like the second person to have it, when it was a non-issue.

To other people who find it necessary to share their faith: Save it for real life. It's too freaking hard and futile to try and do it over the internet, and only ends in tears/flame wars.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 10, 2010)

Innocence said:


> This is kinda why I deleted it from my signature. It was fine when it was just kind of a cool thing to identify yourself to other [christians] or [whatever else] but when people started to judge me for that, I felt it necessary to remove it. I'm pretty sure I was like the second person to have it, when it was a non-issue.
> 
> To other people who find it necessary to share their faith: Save it for real life. It's too freaking hard and futile to try and do it over the internet, and only ends in tears/flame wars.



No tears, just flame wars =p


----------



## ariasamie (Jul 10, 2010)

*We are all humans. I deleted it from my signature.*


----------



## Dene (Jul 10, 2010)

u mein liek dis.?


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Jul 10, 2010)

Dene said:


> u mein liek dis.?



+1


----------



## Stini (Jul 10, 2010)

I kind of liked the "Middle class cuber" though


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Jul 10, 2010)

Innocence said:


> This is kinda why I deleted it from my signature. It was fine when it was just kind of a cool thing to identify yourself to other [christians] or [whatever else] but when people started to judge me for that, I felt it necessary to remove it. I'm pretty sure I was like the second person to have it, when it was a non-issue.
> 
> To other people who find it necessary to share their faith: Save it for real life. It's too freaking hard and futile to try and do it over the internet, and only ends in tears/flame wars.



why let others affect you on what you want?
it's your signature after all
let them hate you for doing what you want.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 10, 2010)

Couldn't care less.


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 10, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > This is kinda why I deleted it from my signature. It was fine when it was just kind of a cool thing to identify yourself to other [christians] or [whatever else] but when people started to judge me for that, I felt it necessary to remove it. I'm pretty sure I was like the second person to have it, when it was a non-issue.
> ...



We can bash each other in plenty of other places regarding our religious beliefs, but does this really need it's own thread on the website entitled "Speedsolving the Rubik's Cube & Other Puzzles???? 
I mean, even for off topic this is kinda out there.

My signature doesn't state what I believe. Does that mean that I'm automatically better, cooler, or "part of the group"? No, it doesn't. Does the fact that someone has chosen to make known what they believe mean that I should treat them better/worse regarding discussion on the _Rubik's Cube_? No.



> I believe the Off-Topic Section is for anything non-cubing related. Therefore it doesn't really matter how far-fetched it is if it's in that section now does it?


Fair enough...


----------



## puzzlemaster (Jul 10, 2010)

TheCubeMaster5000 said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



I believe the Off-Topic Section is for anything non-cubing related. Therefore it doesn't really matter how far-fetched it is if it's in that section now does it?


----------



## Innocence (Jul 10, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> TheCubeMaster5000 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisBird said:
> ...



This.

@Dene...Do you seriously have to make tons of enemies by over inflating things to something they're not? Can't you just let it be?


----------



## InfernoTowel (Jul 10, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> I agree.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with whatever you believe, whether it be the God of the Bible, Satan, a Pie, Waffle, Erik, Buddha, Chuck Norris or whatever. I'm cool with it, but there's no reason to bring it here. It's just frustrating, and like Ethan said, unnecessarily divides the community into different groups.
> 
> ...


+3, because +1 isn't good enough for this post.


----------



## Mitch15 (Jul 10, 2010)

I for one like to see religious signatures. Whether their of the same religion as me or not I don't really care; I just think somebody showing their faith in even a small way is nice to see.

I do agree that all the threads are just annoying and don't belong here.

Lastly, I think if a small thing in a signature religion related bothers you, then you are way too easily bothered. You could just as easily say you want everything in signatures to be cube related and cube related only because everything else is personal and not related to this forum.


----------



## Shortey (Jul 10, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Couldn't care less.



This.


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Jul 10, 2010)

Mitch15 said:


> Lastly, I think if a small thing in a signature religion related bothers you, then you are way to easily bothered. You could just as easily say you want everything in signatures to be cube related and cube related only because everything else is personal and not related to this forum.



This.

I honestly don't care what's in anybody's signature. If you don't like it, ignore it. It's not like their signature is gonna come out and stab you in the eye.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 10, 2010)

Innocence said:


> @Dene...Do you seriously have to make tons of enemies by over inflating things to something they're not? Can't you just let it be?



lolno

see Dene has grown on us. So I could really care less...much like the topic of religious signatures.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 10, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> I could really care less




Are you sure? XD


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 10, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > I could really care less
> ...



The fact that I have signature disabled also adds into that
and Dene is hot...just putting it out there


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 10, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...




nonononononononothatsnotwhatImean


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 10, 2010)

but I do care a little bit :3


----------



## Erik (Jul 10, 2010)

Personally I don't care what people post in their sig as long as it is not too long or flashy. But Ethan, I thought you (and me lol) got banend for what we put in our sig at TP? Why do you mind about sig content now then?
But w/e like I said, I don't care at all.


----------



## incessantcheese (Jul 10, 2010)

i can see how some people would get annoyed by this, but i don't think people who put "christian cuber" in their signature do it in any way that's imposing on other people. they are simply identifying themselves as christian, same as some people (strangely) identify themselves as korean. if they're proud of the fact that they're christian or korean (and a cuber), i don't think there's any issue. 

this thread definitely annoyed me more than the signatures did. i'm strongly atheist if that'll factor into how you feel about my opinion.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jul 10, 2010)

I don't mind it at all.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 10, 2010)

Erik said:


> Personally I don't care what people post in their sig as long as it is not too long or flashy. But Ethan, I thought you (and me lol) got banend for what we put in our sig at TP? Why do you mind about sig content now then?
> But w/e like I said, I don't care at all.



Haha I'm not saying ban them, I'm just saying I don't understand why people feel the need to be intentionally divisive.

SAVE THOM


----------



## jackdexter75 (Jul 10, 2010)

I don't mind it either.


----------



## dabmasta (Jul 10, 2010)

It really shouldn't be a big deal. If the phrase, "Christian Cuber" or whatever is going to interject with a discussion, then you need to take a step back. Let people show their beliefs if they want to.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 10, 2010)

separation of church and forums?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 10, 2010)

I agree with the OP.
While it doesn't _offend_ me to see the sigs, I just don't think this is place for that. They can only do harm, not good.

That being said, all and all, this is a small issue. I don't think it's necessary to make an official rule about it.
Whatever consensus is made on this should just be a community rule that people follow out of respect for our decision, not out of fear of a ban.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 10, 2010)

cry me a river.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Jul 10, 2010)

just don't freaking pay attention to it. Grow up and suck it up and deal with it Ethan.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 10, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> just don't freaking pay attention to it. Grow up and suck it up and deal with it Ethan.



Random pointless and useless insulting in a post where you tell someone to grow up.

Practice what you preach.


----------



## dabmasta (Jul 10, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > just don't freaking pay attention to it. Grow up and suck it up and deal with it Ethan.
> ...



+1

pppst... be very quiet, I hear a flame war.


----------



## Mitch15 (Jul 10, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> i can see how some people would get annoyed by this, but i don't think people who put "christian cuber" in their signature do it in any way that's imposing on other people. they are simply identifying themselves as christian, same as some people (strangely) identify themselves as korean. if they're proud of the fact that they're christian or korean (and a cuber), i don't think there's any issue.
> 
> *this thread definitely annoyed me more than the signatures did.* i'm strongly atheist if that'll factor into how you feel about my opinion.


Yes.




Ethan Rosen said:


> Erik said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I don't care what people post in their sig as long as it is not too long or flashy. But Ethan, I thought you (and me lol) got banend for what we put in our sig at TP? Why do you mind about sig content now then?
> ...



I don't think they're being divisive. I don't think showing pride in your religion shows any intention to take a side in a flame war or anything. I just think they feel its something about them theyre proud of, just as proud as somebody putting a new PB in their sig. I know I see it as harmlessly as adding your location to your profile. Or a picture. It's a matter of self-description


----------



## nlCuber22 (Jul 10, 2010)

inb4pointlessargument


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 10, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> I agree with the OP.
> While it doesn't _offend_ me to see the sigs, I just don't think this is place for that. *They can only do harm, not good.*
> 
> That being said, all and all, this is a small issue. I don't think it's necessary to make an official rule about it.
> Whatever consensus is made on this should just be a community rule that people follow out of respect for our decision, not out of fear of a ban.



How are they going to do harm? Like Waffle said, you can always turn off signatures completely if it bothers you that much, which it really shouldn't. They aren't trying to put it out there to convert other people to their belief, they are just identifying themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is coming from a complete atheist, and it doesn't bother me even the slightest bit to see "Christian Cuber" in someone's signature..


----------



## Chapuunka (Jul 10, 2010)

I'm still confused why this bothers people. It's not like I'm making a whole thread about it or anything, I'm not trying to convert anybody (Internet conversion just doesn't work). There are far more obnoxious (and some might argue inappropriate) signatures on here, but no one has a problem with those.

And besides, as a Christian, I'm supposed to be loud and proud about it (represent). I'd rather people know about it. If nothing else, it gives some insight to my own decisions in all the more controversial threads. But I don't see any reason to argue this, the Internet's just not a place for something like that (although I'm not saying the Internet is not a place for religion), so I'm just going to leave this thread. Have a good day. 

Galatians 1:10, NLT


Spoiler



Obviously, I'm not trying to win the approval of people, but of God. If pleasing people were my goal, I would not be Christ's servant.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 10, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with the OP.
> ...



What I meant by that argument is, no good is going to come from having those signatures. Then only outcomes that there could possibly be are bad ones.
This thread, being one of them. If there were no signatures, we wouldn't have this thread, now would we? And many of you are irritated with the thread...

And just because you, as an atheist, don't mind seeing "Christian Cuber," that doesn't mean all atheists won't mind seeing it. Or that all Christians won't mind seeing it.

Like I said before, this isn't about offense- for me at least- I just think there's no need to deliberately introduce an extremely divisive topic to this site that has absolutely no relevance to cubing.


----------



## dabmasta (Jul 10, 2010)

Speaking of signatures, how come we can't upload pictures for signatures?


----------



## Bryan (Jul 10, 2010)

dabmasta said:


> Speaking of signatures, how come we can't upload pictures for signatures?



Because some people would have super annoying crap.


----------



## dabmasta (Jul 10, 2010)

Bryan said:


> dabmasta said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of signatures, how come we can't upload pictures for signatures?
> ...



This generally what size limits and moderators are for, but I guess so.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Jul 11, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> jackdexter75 said:
> 
> 
> > just don't freaking pay attention to it. Grow up and suck it up and deal with it Ethan.
> ...



I didn't insult him. I just told him grow up and forget about it. if someone want's say "atheist cuber" in THEIR OWN sig. so be it. they can do what they want they aren't trying to bug anyone. just expressing themselves


----------



## JeffDelucia (Jul 11, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> separation of church and forums?



Seperation of church/synagogue/temple/restaurant franchise and forums.


----------



## Mitch15 (Jul 11, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> uberCuber said:
> 
> 
> > hawkmp4 said:
> ...



1. This is terrible logic. You could say "no good" is going to come from cubing. Therefore the only outcomes that there could possibly be are bad ones. Therefore cubing is bad. The logic is just poor. You can claim cubing causes intellectual stimulation, stress relief, or other intangible benefits, but I said earlier that I like seeing faith in sigs, and I'm sure many people would say pride in their faith or religion is also an intangible benefit. Furthermore, this logic would say that anything neutral on a good/bad scale is inherently bad for its lack of being good. I just think the logic is really bad.

2. Again, if people have a problem seeing "Christian cuber" in a sig on a forum, they don't belong on the internet.

3. There are a lot of sigs that don't have to do with cubing, but instead with social things. A forum that has no personality or no social stuff or no self description would be a much duller community. Also, again, poor logic, as I don't believe the location of people is very cubing related. You can make a claim it is, but it'd be strung out enough that one could make an equally strong claim that religion is related to cubing.


----------



## Nestor (Jul 11, 2010)

This thread reminds me of first person shooter game clans like with names as "Christian Figthers" and "Christian Killers"...

Contradiction much?


----------



## Chapuunka (Jul 11, 2010)

UnAbusador said:


> This thread reminds me of first person shooter game clans like with names as "Christian Figthers" and "Christian Killers"...
> 
> Contradiction much?



Not at all. Look at the Old Testament. There are people like David, Samson, etc, that killed hundreds of men in their lifetime.


----------



## Mitch15 (Jul 11, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> UnAbusador said:
> 
> 
> > This thread reminds me of first person shooter game clans like with names as "Christian Figthers" and "Christian Killers"...
> ...



And then there's the Crusades of course.
Also, Christian Killers could mean those who kill Christians, not Christians who kill; again, the Crusades.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 11, 2010)

jackdexter75 said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > jackdexter75 said:
> ...



And telling him to "grow up" isn't insulting.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 11, 2010)

Mitch15 said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > uberCuber said:
> ...



You're not reading.
1. You could SAY no good could come from cubing, but we all know that's not true. So I don't know what you're trying to show with that argument. In fact, I don't see one single coherent argument in the block of text you labelled '1.' It's all over the place.

I do rescind the statement of no good coming from the sigs. Some people like it. There's the good that comes from it.

2. That kind of attitude is part of why I don't want to see the Christian Cuber sigs. My point, AGAIN, is not that I am offended with the text itself, it's that I don't think that this is the appropriate place for such things. 

3. It's not just that it's not related to cubing- it's that it's an extremely divisive issue that's unrelated. That is, it's an issue that ALWAYS spawns controversy and there's no relevance to the cubing.

Would we allow people to put 'pro-life cuber' and 'pro-choice cuber' in their signatures? "Pro/anti-death penalty cuber?"


----------



## Chapuunka (Jul 11, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> it's an issue that ALWAYS spawns controversy



I don't think I've seen a problem with it up until this thread. Unless you're talking about Christian beliefs themselves. That is always going to cause controversy, which I think actually shows something. Why would people get into such large arguments unless it's something worth getting upset about?

EDIT: Once again, I don't want to get into a debate about my beliefs. It's just not going to work in an Internet setting like this.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 11, 2010)

should be just ban signatures and stop complaining?


----------



## CharlesOBlack (Jul 11, 2010)

Is it fair if I say "Charles Cuber"?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 11, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > it's an issue that ALWAYS spawns controversy
> ...



Just because you haven't seen a problem doesn't mean one doesn't exist- several people have expressed that they don't like that in sigs.

In regards to your edit: There's a simple resolution to that- if you were to take the Christian Cuber out of your sig, then you wouldn't have any trouble with people debating your beliefs.


----------



## Dene (Jul 11, 2010)

Innocence said:


> @Dene...Do you seriously have to make tons of enemies by over inflating things to something they're not? Can't you just let it be?



Yes. Or no. Not quite sure how to answer that.


----------



## xXzaKerXx (Jul 11, 2010)

I personally couldn't care less what people put in their signatures, but it's a sensitive issue if somebody said something wrong and starts a flame war. I mean, everyone in this forum is united by cubing, and we don't need to start dividing into small groups that define our religion. Sure everyone is free to believe in whatever they want, but it's just better to keep it to yourself, such as in a place with people with different nationalities.


----------



## Mitch15 (Jul 11, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Mitch15 said:
> 
> 
> > hawkmp4 said:
> ...



1. Sorry for the incoherence. The statement I was trying to make is that whether or not something brings about good does not dictate whether or not it brings around bad. To say what does not produce good must be bad is flawed reasoning.

2. That wasn't attitude; that's fact. If somebody is angered or has a problem merely seeing a signature with "Christian Cuber" in it I'll argue all day that they should avoid the internet at all costs. Indeed, avoid all people and interaction at all costs they must if they wish to keep from getting severely agitated. In other words, anyone who can't handle a non-provocative mere description of somebody else in their signature is too sensitive for anybody online to censor for. If they are that paranoid against what they may see, they should leave the internet, not look at posters, not listen to anything anyone says, and indeed isolate themselves from the world altogether. The world is full of people with opinions that differ from those of others.

3. While I agree that the topic of religion often spawns controversy and threads about it should be avoided (though one can make the argument it would be appropriate in off topic sections since everybody has the ability not to enter the thread if they so wish), a signature that references religion should not spawn controversy. If it does spawn controversy, I would argue that it is the person that comments on the signature, not the person who wrote the signature, that is spawning the controversy (much like the OP of this thread, which I think is unnecessary and merely provoking controversy).
To answer your question, I would have absolutely no problem if people put pro-life cuber in their signature, nor any of the other things you listed. I wouldn't have a problem with it if somebody was trying to convert people in their signature. First of all, I can turn sigs off if they bother me that much, which they won't. Second, I can not read a signature or stop reading one I've started at any time. Third, I might find someone's sig annoying or unnecessary, but even if that is the case I would not demand they change it. On a forum, there is very little self-expression whatsoever. I say, barring things like profanity, defamation, vulgarity, racism, etc. let people put whatever they want in their signatures. Anybody who has a problem can turn them off.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 11, 2010)

yay flame war!


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jul 11, 2010)

Watch out Waffle! You might get burnt!


----------



## Edward (Jul 11, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Watch out Waffle! You might get burnt!



The tears will keep him cool.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 11, 2010)




----------



## Mitch15 (Jul 11, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> yay flame war!



I really feel like if we were talking in person, this would be a discussion and not a yelling match. I don't think anyone is angry or flaming at the moment. I would hope hawkmp4 thinks the same. I'm all for a bit of debate. I'm in no way flaming.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 11, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Watch out Waffle! You might get burnt!



I effing live in a waffle iron in waffletopia, I'm not getting burnt anytime soon


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 11, 2010)

Wait wait. You can turn sigs OFF?!?! Oh joy!!!


----------



## Mitch15 (Jul 11, 2010)

User CP:
Edit Options: (left side bar)

Scroll down:

Visible Post Elements
You have the option to show or hide various elements of messages, which may be of use to users on slow internet connections, or who want to remove extraneous clutter from posts.
Show Signatures
Show Avatars
Show Images (including attached images and images in


----------



## BigGreen (Jul 11, 2010)

FLAME WAR BEGUN!


----------



## Chapuunka (Jul 11, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > hawkmp4 said:
> ...



Like I said, *I* hadn't seen one. I didn't say it wasn't there, I never solidly claimed anything.

And I should be more specific--I don't want to debate my beliefs a thread, like has been done before. I'm more than happy to talk to someone via PM or at a contest or something about my beliefs. So if you have some great issue with Christianity or just some questions, fire away. But a big debate that would likely turn into a flame war just isn't something I want to get in to.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Jul 11, 2010)

yay i was right woo


----------



## iasimp1997 (Jul 11, 2010)

It doesn't divide the forums into groups specified by their beliefs. I think that exploiting your beliefs through many varying ways, including this form, is pretty cool and it shows how much you actually care about your religion/belief system.
Which is exactly why I do it.
There's no real problem with this "issue". Unless I'm mistaken, there haven't been any complaints about it.


----------



## ThePuzzler96 (Jul 11, 2010)

I am a christian, and I'm not ashamed of it or anything. But putting it in a signature generates unnecessary controversy.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 11, 2010)

I'm a Christian...and a Nihilist. Take that!


----------



## Inf3rn0 (Jul 11, 2010)

This is lol.
Agnostic but srs who isnt.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Jul 11, 2010)

ThePuzzler96 said:


> I am a christian, and I'm not ashamed of it or anything. But putting it in a signature generates unnecessary controversy.



There is no controversy. I think that atheists just want to put down religious persons and tell them that they're causing major conflict among the very peaceful community of speedsolving.com forums by putting "Christian Cuber" in their signatures.


----------



## Feryll (Jul 11, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> ThePuzzler96 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a christian, and I'm not ashamed of it or anything. But putting it in a signature generates unnecessary controversy.
> ...



That second sentence didn't even make any sense. You're saying that atheists are putting down religious people by themselves putting "Christian cuber" in their sig? And you are putting fuel on the fire by making such vicious claims.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 11, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> ThePuzzler96 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a christian, and I'm not ashamed of it or anything. But putting it in a signature generates unnecessary controversy.
> ...



lol blame the atheists for everything. well guess what. not everyone who disagrees with putting religion into their sig is an atheist


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Jul 11, 2010)

I am a Catholic, and I am fine with that. If you guys put "Atheist Cuber" in your signatures, I don't care. I'm at least glad that you guys are not shoving religions down everyone's throats.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 11, 2010)

OMG MUFFINS


----------



## incessantcheese (Jul 11, 2010)

:fp everybody has different opinions

putting "christian cuber" in the signature is not shoving anything down anybody's throats or anything similar. i don't think it's hostile in the least. someone claiming that they are christian should not cause controversy and annoyance, that's as intolerant as a christian looking down on someone for being atheist. if you don't like it when that happens, then don't do the same to them.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Jul 11, 2010)

OMG MUFFINS


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 11, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> ThePuzzler96 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a christian, and I'm not ashamed of it or anything. But putting it in a signature generates unnecessary controversy.
> ...



At this point, I've agreed to disagree with Mitch15 and the people who were making similar points. For the record: there was no flaming among us.

However, as I keep in mind Right Speech, I would like to say that iasimp1997 is being unnecessarily paranoid, and that I would like him to take another look at everything that's been said in this thread, because nothing supports his conspiracy theory.

EDIT:
I dunno why you all are talking about muffins. Muffins are nothing compared to waffles. There is no reason for muffins' existence. You should know better.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 11, 2010)

I just want to point out that atheists tend to come from families where they had religion forced on them. I assume that because of this they push atheism on others. This in no way is justified, nor is pushing an religion on anyone.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 11, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> I just want to point out that atheists tend to come from families where they had religion forced on them. *I assume that because of this they push atheism on others. *This in no way is justified, nor is pushing an religion on anyone.



I'm atheist and I don't push it on others. I don't know of any atheist door knockers


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 11, 2010)

I don't understand where people are getting the idea that this thread is about atheists pushing religion on Christians or Christians on atheists...that's not what it was ever about.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 11, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> EnterPseudonym said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to point out that atheists tend to come from families where they had religion forced on them. *I assume that because of this they push atheism on others. *This in no way is justified, nor is pushing an religion on anyone.
> ...



look up TheAmazingAtheist on YouTube he's about as close as it gets.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 11, 2010)

OMG THE MUFFINS ARE STILL HERE


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> ZB_FTW!!! said:
> 
> 
> > EnterPseudonym said:
> ...



Which is not very close considering it's on Youtube.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 11, 2010)

Weston said:


> EnterPseudonym said:
> 
> 
> > ZB_FTW!!! said:
> ...


I never said it was close.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > EnterPseudonym said:
> ...


I never said you said it was close 
But I guess I kind of implied it. What you said was kind of ambiguous anyhow. So I guess it got cleared up a little bit


----------



## mcciff2112 (Jul 11, 2010)

I don't have a signature, so it all works out in the end


----------



## Ton (Jul 11, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> This is for all of you who feel the need to put "christian cuber" or "atheist cuber" or "jedi cuber" or "nazi cuber" or whatever the hell else you guys have been putting into your signatures. Just stop it. Nobody cares, nobody wants to see it. Stop trying to divide people by what god you do or don't worship and just accept that we all enjoy a central hobby. Take your religious ramblings somewhere else.



So you want to us to censure our own signature? Just because YOU see it as religious rambling? We can not all be like you , we are all individuals with an own opinion, a signature does not provoke or force an opinion, it says something personal about the poster, do you know the forum rules?


> "6. Last but not least: Try to contibute to a nice ambiance on the forum."


 You remark does not contribute to this speedsolving forum rule. To say "religious ramblings" just because it is not by YOUR standard or your opinion is small minded. To say "divide people"it is YOU who divide the people. In the end I respect your remarks and the way you are, because you are YOU and ... you cube...


----------



## Zane_C (Jul 11, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> This is for all of you who feel the need to put "christian cuber" or "atheist cuber" or "jedi cuber" or "nazi cuber" or whatever the hell else you guys have been putting into your signatures. Just stop it. Nobody cares, nobody wants to see it. Stop trying to divide people by what god you do or don't worship and just accept that we all enjoy a central hobby. Take your religious ramblings somewhere else.



I agree.


----------



## Johan444 (Jul 11, 2010)

That kind of signatures makes it easier to know whos opinion to ignore. Do not remove them.


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Jul 11, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> That kind of signatures makes it easier to know whos opinion to ignore. Do not remove them.



What?
You're gonna ignore someone just because of their religious beliefs?


----------



## Zane_C (Jul 11, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> That kind of signatures makes it easier to know whos opinion to ignore. Do not remove them.



Lol, How wrong this is, I found it rather funny.


----------



## Johan444 (Jul 11, 2010)

Spoiler



It was a joke


----------



## Innocence (Jul 11, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> It was a joke



Figured. Don't mind Andy, he's just a kid. 

Another example of prejudice on this forum seeing as that's what people seem to be doing.

Ya, I think we're done here. Ton sums it up by saying:

...you cube...

The End, let's all eat cake.


----------



## dada222 (Jul 11, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> This is for all of you who feel the need to put "christian cuber" or "atheist cuber" or "jedi cuber" or "nazi cuber" or whatever the hell else you guys have been putting into your signatures. Just stop it. Nobody cares, nobody wants to see it. Stop trying to divide people by what god you do or don't worship and just accept that we all enjoy a central hobby. Take your religious ramblings somewhere else.



QFT!


----------



## andyt1992 (Jul 11, 2010)

Why does it matter? if you dont agree with someone elses beliefs or mockeries why should they have to change their signature for you??


----------



## TrollingHard (Jul 11, 2010)

Rawr I am the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER


OT:

Agreed.


----------



## Gollum999 (Jul 11, 2010)

I didn't take the time to read this whole thread, but here's what I'm thinking:
By creating this thread, you have probably caused more argument and debate than the "Cristian Cuber" or "Atheist Cuber" etc. signatures have created by themselves. 

IMO I don't have any problem with people putting stuff like that in their signatures, but when people create threads arguing about them, it's kinda stupid, and generally ends up being a flame war. :/

[/2cents]


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 11, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> There is no controversy. I think that atheists just want to put down religious persons and tell them that they're causing major conflict among the very peaceful community of speedsolving.com forums by putting "Christian Cuber" in their signatures.



I will have to politely ask you to get out of this thread. Until you posted that, it was more a debate than a flame war (at least from my point of view). I am atheist, and I do not put down religious people for any reason. In fact, a couple of my best friends in real life are Christians. There are other atheists who have posted in this thread who are the same, and would not just put down religious people for no reason. Just because you have seen a couple atheists with this kind of attitude does not mean you can group us all together and blame all of us for this problem.



Gollum999 said:


> I didn't take the time to read this whole thread, but here's what I'm thinking:
> By creating this thread, you have probably caused more argument and debate than the "Cristian Cuber" or "Atheist Cuber" etc. signatures have created by themselves.
> 
> IMO I don't have any problem with people putting stuff like that in their signatures, but when people create threads arguing about them, it's kinda stupid, and generally ends up being a flame war. :/
> ...



I completely agree with this, this argument would not be happening if the thread hadn't been created in the first place

EDIT: and yes, waffles are way better than muffins


----------



## cincyaviation (Jul 11, 2010)

BigGreen said:


> FLAME WAR BEGUN!


Lol, that was like a half hour from my house.


----------



## cubemaster13 (Jul 11, 2010)

well they are just showing there faith... which bugs me... so they should just stop


----------



## Samania (Jul 12, 2010)

I say leave them be. We can always just not look at that part of the sig if it really bugs you.


----------



## Mitch15 (Jul 12, 2010)

muffins are just ugly cupcakes


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 12, 2010)

cubemaster13 said:


> well they are just showing there faith... which bugs me... so they should just stop



maybe you should just stop looking at it then if it bothers you that much..its their sig they can say whatever they want



Mitch15 said:


> muffins are just ugly cupcakes



^QFT


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2010)

Gollum999 said:


> I didn't take the time to read this whole thread, but here's what I'm thinking:
> *By creating this thread, you have probably caused more argument and debate than the "Cristian Cuber" or "Atheist Cuber" etc. signatures have created by themselves*.
> 
> IMO I don't have any problem with people putting stuff like that in their signatures, but when people create threads arguing about them, it's kinda stupid, and generally ends up being a flame war. :/
> ...



I think that was his intentions. That's just me though.


----------



## jackdexter75 (Jul 12, 2010)

Edward said:


> Gollum999 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't take the time to read this whole thread, but here's what I'm thinking:
> ...



Nope it's not just you. haha


----------



## musicninja17 (Jul 12, 2010)

People stating what they believe in bothers you? That makes you intolerant.


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 12, 2010)

seriously i'm adding it to my sig just because this thread annoys me so much


----------



## Mitch15 (Jul 12, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> seriously i'm adding it to my sig just because this thread annoys me so much



yeah ive be considering


----------



## Samania (Jul 12, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> seriously i'm adding it to my sig just because this thread annoys me so much



Lol. Now you're annoying the thread xD


----------



## radmin (Jul 12, 2010)

Time to change my signature.

There, done.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 12, 2010)

I don't really see why anyone is worried about what people put in their signature. If someone wants to put "Christian Cuber" or "3x3 PB: 24.86" or "CARROT" - what's the problem? It doesn't matter that you don't care, because they care enough to have it there. If you don't like sigs at all you can always turn them off. I say you should just be happy that signatures are limited to two lines of text, unlike other forums where some members have huge amounts of text or flashing animations under every post they make.



EnterPseudonym said:


> I just want to point out that atheists tend to come from families where they had religion forced on them. I assume that because of this they push atheism on others. This in no way is justified, nor is pushing an religion on anyone.


I just want to point out that you must not know a lot of atheists.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jul 12, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I say you should just be happy that signatures are limited to two lines of text, unlike other forums where some members have huge amounts of text or flashing animations under every post they make.


This. Other forums can be really annoying because of this. This forum is much cleaner because of the two lines of text limit. 

Thanks for the sig idea by the way. [/random]


----------



## Innocence (Jul 12, 2010)

rickcube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I say you should just be happy that signatures are limited to two lines of text, unlike other forums where some members have huge amounts of text or flashing animations under every post they make.
> ...



I think it would be nice if a small image, say no more than 250*100 was allowed. It would be a nice creative expression thing, if everyone behaved. Probably would increase the quality of signatures, too, but you never know who's going to put something stupid or not.


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2010)

Innocence said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



Who needs 2 avatars?


----------



## Feryll (Jul 12, 2010)

rickcube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I say you should just be happy that signatures are limited to two lines of text, unlike other forums where some members have huge amounts of text or flashing animations under every post they make.
> ...



Dude, I was about to make that my sig!


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 12, 2010)

qqwref said:


> EnterPseudonym said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to point out that atheists tend to come from families where they had religion forced on them. I assume that because of this they push atheism on others. This in no way is justified, nor is pushing an religion on anyone.
> ...


HAHAHA, oh wow


----------



## TeddyKGB (Jul 12, 2010)

Innocence said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



But then people would get mad because I would put a picture of jesus!


----------



## teller (Jul 12, 2010)

Why would anyone be offended by a Christian sig?

Do you get all upset by someone who advocates Roux in their sig and feel the need to start a protest thread about it? Eww! Dumb!!!


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 12, 2010)

lolthread
EDIT: Ethan is a trololololol


----------



## shelley (Jul 12, 2010)

I'm not actually offended by it (I just ignore the sigs most of the time), but I can see why people might be.

Advertising your religion is not exactly the same as advertising any other interest or hobby you happen to have. An important part of several major religions (Christianity and Islam, I'm looking at you) involves going forth and actively spreading your belief to those who haven't "seen the light". Maybe it's not what you personally believe, but when you advertise your Christianity you imply that you subscribe to their beliefs, including something along those lines. It could make a non-Christian feel that you believe he should be Christian, and that could be offensive to him.

As for the "Atheist cuber" signatures, they're obviously a reaction to the religious signatures. Nobody declares "non-stamp collecting" as a hobby or advertises themselves as a "non-Roux user" if they use Fridrich.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 12, 2010)

shelley said:


> .
> 
> Advertising your religion is not exactly the same as advertising any other interest or hobby you happen to have. An important part of several major religions (Christianity and Islam, I'm looking at you) involves going forth and actively spreading your belief to those who haven't "seen the light". Maybe it's not what you personally believe, but when you advertise your Christianity you imply that you subscribe to their beliefs, including something along those lines. It could make a non-Christian feel that you believe he should be Christian, and that could be offensive to him.
> .



who cares if its offensive to a particular person. As you said part of the religion involves going forth etc. So by putting it in their sig they are following what they believe in, and at the same time not forcing it on anyone.


----------



## Weston (Jul 12, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


So would it be okay for me to be publicly racist if that's what I really believe?


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Jul 12, 2010)

OHAI GUYZ
LIKE MY NEW SIG!?!?!?1


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 12, 2010)

Weston said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...


yep, just stick it in your sig and be on your way.


----------



## Weston (Jul 12, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...


Funnily enough, my sig is already a little racist. More of an inside joke though.


----------



## teller (Jul 12, 2010)

Weston said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



In that case, you would actually advocate the destruction of people who have no choice over an accident of birth. That would be evil...

With Christians you're really just talking about cosmology, which I equate more readily with the C#/C++ or Fridrich/Roux debate. People have at least thought about (well, at least they had the opportunity to do so) cosmology and came up with something and there it is, and if you find it offensive then you're probably a little unstable and maybe dangerous (much like the racists).

Basically, if you get offended or violent, then you've jumped beyond mere debate or discourse into something creepy.


----------



## aronpm (Jul 12, 2010)

teller said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > So would it be okay for me to be publicly *anti-gay* if that's what I really believe?
> ...



Hm...


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Jul 12, 2010)

AndyRoo789 said:


> OHAI GUYZ
> LIKE MY NEW SIG!?!?!?1



SANTANA FTW


----------



## Weston (Jul 12, 2010)

Religion is also arguably largely based on who you're born to, much like someones race, IMO. 
Christianity goes beyond just cosmology. Being a Christian implies that you might believe in some things that others may find offensive, such as the idea that atheists should go to Hell.


----------



## teller (Jul 12, 2010)

Weston said:


> Religion is also arguably largely based on who you're born to, much like someones race, IMO.
> Christianity goes beyond just cosmology. Being a Christian implies that you might believe in some things that others may find offensive, such as the idea that atheists should go to Hell.




Some religions take it way too far, for sure. Some people blow themselves up. They go into the "creepy" category.

But I've never met a Jehovah's Witness who wanted to kill me. And maybe, given enough exposure to ideas, a young Witness might broaden his horizons...

I am not a Christian, but I think one could do worse than Christianity. At least its modern variants. When they come to my door, I regrettably have to turn them away, but I appreciate their consistently peaceful demeanor.

It would be different if someone's sig said, "Bomb abortion clinics! Kill doctors!" Etc.

If they merely think I'm going to hell, then they are merely mistaken. Not actually something you have to fear.


----------



## Weston (Jul 12, 2010)

For me at least, its not just the idea that they think that I will go to hell, its that some of them think that I DESERVE to go to hell and suffer eternal torture.
To me, by this it seems that they think they are a better person than me, simply because I'm not a Christian.
I guess its not really "offensive," more of just annoying.


----------



## teller (Jul 12, 2010)

Weston said:


> For me at least, its not just the idea that they think that I will go to hell, its that some of them think that I DESERVE to go to hell and suffer eternal torture.
> To me, by this it seems that they think they are a better person than me, simply because I'm not a Christian.
> I guess its not really "offensive," more of just annoying.




Fair enough, but most Christians don't actually WANT you to go to hell. The real ones are more afraid for your eternal soul because by definition they love you. If you find the other type, yes, run. Or at least be offended.


----------



## Kenneth (Jul 12, 2010)

AndyRoo789 said:


> OHAI GUYZ
> LIKE MY NEW SIG!?!?!?1



Yes, it says "Christan cuber" 

To belive in satan you must be a christian because the thing about the devil is a part of christianity...


----------



## Innocence (Jul 12, 2010)

aronpm said:


> teller said:
> 
> 
> > Weston said:
> ...



Whether one has a choice in being homosexual is debatable.



Weston said:


> Religion is also arguably largely based on who you're born to, much like someones race, IMO.
> Christianity goes beyond just cosmology. Being a Christian implies that you might believe in some things that others may find offensive, such as the idea that atheists should go to Hell.



Not necessarily.



Weston said:


> For me at least, its not just the idea that they think that I will go to hell, *its that some of them think that I DESERVE to go to hell and suffer eternal torture.*
> To me, by this it seems that they think they are a better person than me, simply because I'm not a Christian.
> I guess its not really "offensive," more of just annoying.



Just...no.


Kenneth said:


> AndyRoo789 said:
> 
> 
> > OHAI GUYZ
> ...



...What?


----------



## aronpm (Jul 12, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Kenneth said:
> 
> 
> > AndyRoo789 said:
> ...



What he's trying to say is, if you believe in and worship (the Christian) Satan, you must also believe in the Christian God. Which makes you a Christian.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 12, 2010)

Innocence said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > teller said:
> ...




This annoys me. Using the defense "I didn't choose to be like this" is silly because, well, you're implying that there's something wrong with choosing your sexuality in the first place. 

Whether you chose it or not is irrelevant.


----------



## Sakarie (Jul 12, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Kenneth said:
> ...



No that doesn't make you a christian. You have to believe that Jesus died and returned, and by doing that taken all our sins on himself.

I doubt that people worshipping Satan (how many of those idiots really exists?) thinks that Jesus conquered death.


----------



## joey (Jul 12, 2010)

Sakarie said:


> I doubt that people worshipping Satan (how many of those idiots really exists?) thinks that Jesus conquered death.



Why are you an idiot if you worship satan?


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 12, 2010)

>Arguing
>Internet
>Religion
I think I'll just step out.


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2010)

No one with me that Ethan did this on purpose (>;_>


----------



## aronpm (Jul 12, 2010)

On the topic of "satanists", it really annoys me when Atheists/Agnostics/people who don't like Christianity or religion, say that they are satanist or pagans, when they aren't. They just say it to be "ooh I'm different I don't follow one set of religious bs so I'll pretend I'll follow another that the first one doesn't like"


----------



## BigGreen (Jul 12, 2010)

aronpm said:


> On the topic of "satanists", it really annoys me when Atheists/Agnostics/people who don't like Christianity or religion, say that they are satanist or pagans, when they aren't. They just say it to be "ooh I'm different I don't follow one set of religious bs so I'll pretend I'll follow another that the first one doesn't like"



are you a ****ing idiot?


----------



## Weston (Jul 12, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > Religion is also arguably largely based on who you're born to, much like someones race, IMO.
> ...


Which is exactly why I worded it the way I did.


Innocence said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > For me at least, its not just the idea that they think that I will go to hell, *its that some of them think that I DESERVE to go to hell and suffer eternal torture.*
> ...


Because you can speak for every Christian that I'VE ever met right? I could take this further, but I won't since that's not what this thread is about.


----------



## Feryll (Jul 12, 2010)

Why are everyone's tidies in a knot? This fight has happened so many times, and it sure isn't going to accomplish anything new _this_ time.


----------



## shelley (Jul 12, 2010)

All of this discussion is moot anyway because we all know there is only one true God and his name is Frank Morris.


----------



## Weston (Jul 12, 2010)

And the Anglin brothers


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Jul 12, 2010)

shelley said:


> All of this discussion is moot anyway because we all know there is only one true God and his name is Frank Morris.



Frank Morris is the Many-Faced god. He will appease you all. (Any Song of Ice and Fire fans? =])


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 12, 2010)

I WANT A COOKIE D:<


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jul 12, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> I WANT A COOKIE D:<


----------



## qqwref (Jul 12, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> To belive in satan you must be a christian because the thing about the devil is a part of christianity...



Not really. It's entirely possible to believe in the concept/being of Satan without conforming to the Christian interpretation of that belief, just like it's possible to believe in a single all-powerful God and not be a Christian.


It's always interesting to me that people who consider themselves Christian have such a hugely wide variety of beliefs. Some people might believe that everyone who doesn't follow their literal interpretation of the KJV will be tortured for all eternity, while others might simply think that their God-given purpose in life is to do good deeds and be helpful to everyone they come across. As much press as some of the outliers get, assuming a Christian has extreme and antagonistic views is as silly as assuming a white male is a KKK member. Openly stating that you belong to such a gigantic group as Christianity should not offend anyone.


----------



## brunson (Jul 12, 2010)

This thread amuses me.


----------



## TeddyKGB (Jul 13, 2010)

brunson said:


> This thread amuses me.



This thread amuses everyone!

also, where do you get the nerve to call me a carrot?


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 13, 2010)

Can't we at least try to make a concerted effort to discuss religion without either flaming each other, or being dismissive that anything good can come out of it? Isn't it always good to at least _try_ to share and (respectfully) defend ideas that are important? IMO it's the very fact that religion (or lack thereof) _is_ so important to us that it's important that we discuss it.


----------



## Chapuunka (Jul 13, 2010)

Weston said:


> For me at least, its not just the idea that they think that I will go to hell, its that some of them think that I DESERVE to go to hell and suffer eternal torture.
> To me, by this it seems that they think they are a better person than me, simply because I'm not a Christian.
> I guess its not really "offensive," more of just annoying.



I can't speak for the Christians (or at least people who say they're Christians >.>) you've met, but if that's what they truly mean, they're not real Christians.

The whole idea is that EVERYONE (including Christians) deserves to go to hell because we've disobeyed God (sinned) and are now seperated from him. So God sent Jesus down and He died, making a sort of bridge to follow back to God, if you're willing to walk across. We as Christians are supposed get everyone else and bring them across, not stand on the other side, mocking everyone else and telling them they're going to hell.

Erm, not meaning to hijack the thread... It irks me when people say they're Christians and don't practice it.


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 13, 2010)

Amen to that.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 13, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> Can't we at least try to make a concerted effort to discuss religion without either flaming each other, or being dismissive that anything good can come out of it? Isn't it always good to at least _try_ to share and (respectfully) defend ideas that are important? IMO it's the very fact that religion (or lack thereof) _is_ so important to us that it's important that we discuss it.



To be honest, the quality of discussion on religion here is amazingly civil for the internet. There's really only been a couple people who flamed.


----------



## Forte (Jul 13, 2010)

dunpeal2064 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > All of this discussion is moot anyway because we all know there is only one true God and his name is Frank Morris.
> ...



SOME SAY THE WORLD WILL END IN FIRE
SOME SAY IN ICE
FROM WHAT I'VE TASTED OF DESIRE
I HOLD WITH THOSE WHO FAVOUR FIRE

 i think that's not what you mean


----------



## Stefan (Jul 13, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > For me at least, its not just the idea that they think that I will go to hell, its that some of them think that I DESERVE to go to hell and suffer eternal torture.
> ...



Oh... now that's so much better. So you're not only saying I deserve to go to hell, but also that I did something bad? Well thank you very much! How very friendly and totally not insulting! Here I was, thinking I'm a decent person, but you opened my eyes and showed me I'm scum. Thanks! More of that, please! And please, *keep* reminding us that you have this opinion... may I suggest a "Christian Cuber" signature?


----------



## a small kitten (Jul 13, 2010)

Or maybe Cubing Christian...because the Christian is strong in him?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 13, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> I did something bad?




Eve ate fruit from the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden. This is your sin.


----------



## aronpm (Jul 13, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > I did something bad?
> ...



Kirjava, how could you let her do such a thing? I'm ashamed of you.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 13, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > I did something bad?
> ...




But, but... I don't even know any "Eve"


----------



## aronpm (Jul 13, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



Sure you do. I mean, come on, it was only 6000 years ago.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 13, 2010)

aronpm said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



Oh that one. Ok, heard of her. But how am I responsible for that? Did I like travel back in time to make her eat the fruit? Besides, it was an apple, right? Apples are delicious and healthy, why shouldn't she eat it?


----------



## koreancuber (Jul 13, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



who said it was an apple? 

lol, this thread is amusing me.. just one of the religion wars. here's a solution: DON'T LOOK AT PEOPLE'S SIGNATURES!


----------



## Stefan (Jul 13, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> who said it was an apple?



I thought I heard so, but I'm not sure, that's why it was a question. But _most_ fruits are delicious and healthy. Was there something wrong with the actual one?

Besides... didn't God supposedly create Eve? I'm a computer programmer, and when one of the programs I created misbehaves, then of course I don't blame the program - I blame myself. But God doesn't take such responsibility? Seems like a prick to me.


----------



## BigGreen (Jul 13, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> here's a solution: DON'T LOOK AT PEOPLE'S SIGNATURES!


heres another solution: no


----------



## Chapuunka (Jul 13, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > *The whole idea is that EVERYONE (including Christians) deserves to go to hell because we've disobeyed God (sinned) and are now seperated from him.*
> ...



I never said you (or anyone else) was inherently a bad person. Just because you've done a few things wrong doesn't make you as a whole a terrible person--if you're willing to repent and ask for forgiveness. Once again, that's the whole point. We've all screwed up one time or another, so we need forgiveness, hence Jesus.



StefanPochmann said:


> Besides... didn't God supposedly create Eve? I'm a computer programmer, and when one of the programs I created misbehaves, then of course I don't blame the program - I blame myself. But God doesn't take such responsibility? Seems like a prick to me.



God gave us the choice to listen to Him or disobey Him, and she _chose_ not to listen, just as the rest of us have before. Humans aren't programs, so we make our own decisions. Think of it more as a small child: You tell them not to do something, but by ultimately giving them the choice (as opposed to locking them in some room where that won't happen or something) you open up the possibility that they won't listen. If they don't, you get upset. If they do, you're more happy with them than if you had forced them into obeying.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 13, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> God gave us the choice to listen to Him or disobey Him, and she _chose_ not to listen, just as the rest of us have before. Humans aren't programs, so we make our own decisions.




What's with the random capitalisation?


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 13, 2010)

I personally think that the idea that we can control our beliefs is worse than the idea of original sin, although they go hand in hand. If we're going to Hell unless we cleanse ourselves, and if we can only cleanse ourselves by believing in Jesus Christ, then one of three things is happening here:

God thinks that we have the ability to decide what we believe,
God knowingly judges us on criteria which we have no control over,
or the problem doesn't exist because God either doesn't exist or isn't as the Bible describes him (or her).

Maybe people won't disagree with the underlying assumption here, which is that, IMO, one can't control what one believes. You can't convince yourself that mathematical truths such as 2 + 2 = 4 are false, so why should be be expected to be able to choose whether or not we believe in Christ?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 13, 2010)

Of course you can't choose your beliefs. If you could, I'd be down for believing in some sort of god for the comfort about death it gives.

Sadly, I'm not deluded enough for that to happen.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 13, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Just because you've done a few things wrong



Like what?



Chapuunka said:


> if you're willing to repent and ask for forgiveness.



So not only am I punished for something I didn't do, now I'm also supposed to kiss God's ass for it?



Chapuunka said:


> We've all screwed up one time or another, so we need forgiveness, hence Jesus.



Sure I've screwed up and sure I've apologized *to the people I've wronged*. What does Jesus have to do with that?



Chapuunka said:


> Humans aren't programs, so we make our own decisions.



Maybe.



Chapuunka said:


> Think of it more as a small child: You tell them not to do something, but by ultimately giving them the choice (as opposed to locking them in some room where that won't happen or something) you open up the possibility that they won't listen. If they don't, you get upset.



Um, no? Again: *What was wrong with eating that fruit?*


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 13, 2010)

inb4 Pascal's wager


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 13, 2010)

As the story goes, God told her not to eat the fruit. **Chapuunka, confirm what I'm about so say please, or correct me, I'm not sure at all on this.**

If I'm interpreting the story correctly, eating the fruit would have given Eve the knowledge of what was good and what was evil. God told Eve not to eat it, and she did anyway. Why God wouldn't want her to, though, I can't fathom. Take this with a grain of salt though until I'm sure I'm not just grossly misinterpreting the relevant passages of the bible.

Edit: EnterPsuedonym: Good point.


----------



## Chapuunka (Jul 13, 2010)

That's really the problem there: God said no, but Adam and Eve ate the fruit anyway. I guess you can't sin if you don't know what sin is, so that was the issue.

Although I'm a long ways off from knowing everything about Christianity, so I'm not going to have an answer for everything. Go to your local church and ask someone that would know more if you really have an issue. And as I said before Internet and conversion don't really get along too well, so I'm just going to leave like I meant to before. I don't know why I got myself wrapped up in this again...


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 13, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> As the story goes, God told her not to eat the fruit. **Chapuunka, confirm what I'm about so say please, or correct me, I'm not sure at all on this.**
> 
> If I'm interpreting the story correctly, eating the fruit would have given Eve the knowledge of what was good and what was evil. God told Eve not to eat it, and she did anyway. Why God wouldn't want her to, though, I can't fathom. Take this with a grain of salt though until I'm sure I'm not just grossly misinterpreting the relevant passages of the bible.
> 
> Edit: EnterPsuedonym: Good point.


My first post?

Anyway IF Eve didn't know right from wrong before she ate the apple, how can "god" justify punishing mankind for the flaws he knowingly made man with?

Thats all from me for now as i'm in the process of changing to Dvorak


----------



## Stefan (Jul 13, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> As the story goes, God told her not to eat the fruit.



Yeah, I got that. But _"because I say so"_ is never a justification for a rule. Yes, if I had a child I might tell it to not touch a hot plate or to not put a plastic bag over its head or to not throw a knife at me and stuff like that. And there are good reasons for that which I'd most certainly explain along with the rule. Hence I still want to know what was wrong or bad with eating that fruit.



Anonymous said:


> If I'm interpreting the story correctly, eating the fruit would have given Eve the knowledge of what was good and what was evil.



So... expanding knowledge is something bad now?


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 13, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Anonymous said:
> 
> 
> > As the story goes, God told her not to eat the fruit.
> ...



I'm with you. I don't believe in any God, and personally find the idea of faith in general (belief in something despite any and all proof against it) to be rather detrimental to society.

@EnterPsuedonym: No, your point about Pascal's Wager being dumb.

Chapuunka: Is this what you mean by "again"? (Not being judgemental, just curious)
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21243&page=11


----------



## Weston (Jul 13, 2010)

I love Stefan <3


----------



## cardsNcubes (Jul 13, 2010)

Honestly I don't see a fathomable reason why we couldn't put that into our signature. If you think that because someone shows their religion, they think they are better than you, we should stop putting times in our signature too. Maybe we should stop timing all together. If someone knows how to solve in a minute and sees Faz (just an example, it could be anyone) setting a WR at 8.5x seconds on average of 5, or Erik (again, could be anyone) having a 7.08 single, they could easily get discouraged and think that they will never be that good.

About the religious debate, I have my own beliefs and honestly don't care about the religion anyone else chooses, as it is simply a personal choice.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 13, 2010)

cardsNcubes said:


> If you think that because someone shows their religion, they think they are better than you




When did anyone say that?


----------



## dada222 (Jul 13, 2010)

shelley said:


> All of this discussion is moot anyway because we all know there is only one true God and his name is Feliks Zemdegs.



Fixed


----------



## cardsNcubes (Jul 13, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> cardsNcubes said:
> 
> 
> > If you think that because someone shows their religion, they think they are better than you
> ...



Weston said that, page 18 i believe. So I was answering that statement.
Edit, It was page 16.


----------



## Weston (Jul 13, 2010)

I meant "morally better" than me.


----------



## Edward (Jul 13, 2010)

I'm sorry but 


Spoiler


----------



## cincyaviation (Jul 13, 2010)

Pochmann is funny.


----------



## cardsNcubes (Jul 13, 2010)

Weston said:


> I meant "morally better" than me.



I understand that, but my point still stands. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there like that, I know of more than I should. It's simply the concept of 'one person being better than another'.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 13, 2010)

dada222 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > All of this discussion is moot anyway because we all know there is only one true God and his name is Feliks Zemdegs.
> ...



no just no.
it's still frank morris.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 13, 2010)

lolyouguys.
btw Eve didnt sin Adam did. just sayin'
Eve was not instructed to not eat the apple, Adam was.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 13, 2010)

lets all have some spaghetti and be friends mmkay....wait :3


----------



## shelley (Jul 13, 2010)

dada222 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > All of this discussion is moot anyway because we all know there is only one true God and his name is Feliks Zemdegs.
> ...



BLASPHEMER
FRANK MORRIS WILL SCRAMBLE YOUR FACE


----------



## Truncator (Jul 13, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> I'm perfectly fine with whatever you believe, whether it be the God of the Bible, Satan, a Pie, *Waffle*, Erik, Buddha, Chuck Norris or whatever.


<<<333


----------



## Innocence (Jul 14, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Anonymous said:
> 
> 
> > As the story goes, God told her not to eat the fruit.
> ...



Pochmann, I'm using your post as an example, but I've seen this in quite a few posts. Here is my overstated controversial line: ASSUMPTIONS SHOULD BE BANNED.

Who said that God just gave the reason "Because I say so"? I've never seen any evidence that he didn't have a lengthy chat to Adam and Eve about how he loved them and it would be best for them that they didn't eat this fruit, so that they could stay pure and holy and all that jazz. Just saying.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 14, 2010)

Innocence said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Anonymous said:
> ...


And I've never seen any evidence "he" did.


----------



## shelley (Jul 14, 2010)

Innocence said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Anonymous said:
> ...



If there was a good reason for it, why was it never mentioned in the Bible? Without giving any kind of reason, the rationale behind God's decree is basically "Because I say so".

Inb4 "God works in mysterious ways". That's a lousy cop-out for anything you can't easily explain, and I'd rather not follow a system of beliefs that makes no sense.


----------



## Gollum999 (Jul 14, 2010)

shelley said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...





Genesis 2: 15-17 said:


> The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, *for when you eat of it you will surely die.*



Sounds like a good reason to me.


----------



## aronpm (Jul 14, 2010)

Why should they die for eating a fruit? That's stupid.


----------



## Zane_C (Jul 14, 2010)

What if the fruit was poisoned.


----------



## aronpm (Jul 14, 2010)

Hey, maybe you're right. It was the Tree of _Knowledge_ of Good and Evil, and Knowledge is poisonous, right?


----------



## DcF1337 (Jul 14, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Hey, maybe you're right. It was the Tree of _Knowledge_ of Good and Evil, and Knowledge is poisonous, right?



Oh! So that explains why pious Christians are so... um nevermind.


----------



## sequencius (Jul 14, 2010)

Eh everyone knows Christians are always bragging about their religion. (Not Catholics) Also Mormons. OH GOD. They can't seem to read "no soliciting" no matter HOW BIG THE SIGN IS.

=]


----------



## Stefan (Jul 14, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Who said that God just gave the reason "Because I say so"?



Nobody. Who said someone said that?

Although, if you punish someone "for disobedience" (I think this has been said), I'd say you *are* punishing for violating "Because I say so". Cause what else is "(dis)obedience"?



Innocence said:


> *I've never seen any evidence that he didn't* have a lengthy chat to Adam and Eve about ...



Oh right that must mean he probably did.



Gollum999 said:


> Genesis 2: 15-17 said:
> 
> 
> > but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, *for when you eat of it you will surely die.*
> ...



Wait... I thought they *did* eat of it and lived on. So is God a liar? Besides, if my kid does touch the hot plate despite me telling it not to, I think it's punished enough already... no need for me to be a dick and punish it further like God apparently did. I'd be more likely to console my kid than lock it in the basement.


----------



## BigGreen (Jul 14, 2010)

Gollum999 said:


> Sounds like a good reason to me.



gtfo my state


----------



## Innocence (Jul 14, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Who said that God just gave the reason "Because I say so"?
> ...



You read me wrong. I was merely playing the devil's advocate, telling you where you were unfounded in your accusations.

Shelley, maybe it is because we DON'T KNOW as much as whatever sentinent being created us? It's possible that whoever wrote Genesis missed that point. As I said, I'm not trying to prove anything, just stating that people shouldn't jump to conclusions.


----------



## aronpm (Jul 14, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Shelley, maybe it is because we DON'T KNOW as much as whatever sentinent being created us? It's possible that whoever wrote Genesis missed that point. As I said, I'm not trying to prove anything, just stating that people shouldn't jump to conclusions.



Wait, are you saying that the Bible _isn't_ the literal, unchanged Word of God?


----------



## Innocence (Jul 14, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Shelley, maybe it is because we DON'T KNOW as much as whatever sentinent being created us? It's possible that whoever wrote Genesis missed that point. As I said, I'm not trying to prove anything, just stating that people shouldn't jump to conclusions.
> ...



Did I ever say it was? Try not to make generalizations. For the purpose of this debate, you don't even know I'm christian, you've just inferred that from past experiences.

If God had spoken through people to write the Bible, then people are generally going to get some things wrong, because we are imperfect. The interpreter may have left parts out, believing it to be not important. I think the Bible would've taken some serious editing to get to the length it is.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 14, 2010)

Innocence said:


> I was merely playing the devil's advocate, telling you where you were unfounded in your accusations.



Don't remember making accusations.


----------



## Innocence (Jul 14, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > I was merely playing the devil's advocate, telling you where you were unfounded in your accusations.
> ...



...Whatever.

Ok, I'm just going to say what I'm sure a lot of people have been dying to say and were afraid of saying.

Stop being nitpicky, Pochmann.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 14, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Stop being nitpicky, Pochmann.




Hells yeah! Why bother trying to make valid points when you can simply make ad hominem statements? That's much easier, and you have less to think about! (It doesn't matter that you were doing the same thing, I'm sure no one will notice)


----------



## Innocence (Jul 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Stop being nitpicky, Pochmann.
> ...



Nobody's listening. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just having fun.

http://tinyurl.com/38or4p


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 14, 2010)

Of course nobody's listening - you can't listen to text. 

I never said you were trying to argue. I'm merely commenting on your discussion. You should listen to this guy -



Innocence said:


> ASSUMPTIONS SHOULD BE BANNED.




Ohwait.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 14, 2010)

Innocence said:


> http://tinyurl.com/38or4p



That leads to:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Not quite sure you understand the purpose of tinyurl...

And ironically, the first time I saw that comic I think was when Thom showed it somewhere here.


----------



## Innocence (Jul 14, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > http://tinyurl.com/38or4p
> ...



I don't understand the purpose of that post.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Jul 14, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> But, but... I don't even know any "Eve"



Better brush up on your algs then...



StefanPochmann said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > http://tinyurl.com/38or4p
> ...



LOL


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Jul 14, 2010)

tiny. url.


----------



## Innocence (Jul 14, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> tiny. url.



...lulwut?


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Jul 14, 2010)

shorten long urls into tiny ones?


----------



## Innocence (Jul 14, 2010)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> shorten long urls into tiny ones?



That is debatably its most useful function, yes. So?


----------



## spdcbr (Jul 14, 2010)

yeah you made the tiny url longer by making it a tiny url lol
Ok from what I've seen, people usually use tiny urls for mainly two different things...

-making a long url shorter
-tricking people into clicking a link

In this case, you did neither.....
But what the heck it's just a url....no big deal.....


----------



## Innocence (Jul 14, 2010)

spdcbr said:


> yeah you made the tiny url longer by making it a tiny url lol



From 20 to 25 characters in fact. Why would I even want it shorter in the first place? Geez, I'm pretty stupid.


----------



## Owen (Jul 14, 2010)

Tinyurl is useless. Who cares how long a URL is?


----------



## Feryll (Jul 14, 2010)

http:// wwwapps. ups. com/Web Tracking/processInputRequest?sort_by=status&tracknums_displayed=1&Typ eOfInquiryNumber=T&loc=en_US&InquiryNumber1=1Z20305F0390553262&track.x=0&track.y=0


I changed a couple of numbers, because, you know, it had my address on that page.


Spoiler



Oh, and for this:

Guys, this dude is giving out free YJ 9x9s! Check it out!
http://tinyurl.com/y8ufsnp


----------



## Edward (Jul 14, 2010)

Tiny url is pointless for most forums because we have the feature.
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAVXvNl_OrM"]See?!


----------



## dada222 (Jul 14, 2010)

Owen said:


> Tinyurl is useless. Who cares how long a URL is?



Not useless at all. You can rickroll people, link to an image without having anyone know which your photobucket account is, maybe more than that.


----------



## MiloD (Jul 14, 2010)

dada222 said:


> Owen said:
> 
> 
> > Tinyurl is useless. Who cares how long a URL is?
> ...



totally...


----------



## Stefan (Jul 14, 2010)

dada222 said:


> You can rickroll people



You need tinyurl for that? The youtube url isn't cryptic enough?



dada222 said:


> link to an image without having anyone know which your photobucket account is



Really?


----------



## shelley (Jul 14, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Gollum999 said:
> 
> 
> > Genesis 2: 15-17 said:
> ...



You tell your kid not to touch the hot plate because it will hurt him. He does anyway and burns his hand. Because of this, you lock him and all his future descendants in the basement forever. Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Gollum999 (Jul 14, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Gollum999 said:
> 
> 
> > Genesis 2: 15-17 said:
> ...



It's not like it was poisoned or anything, it's a mortality thing. Sure they didn't die immediately, but since they were no longer... ummm... "pure", they would eventually die. That's what it sounds like to me at least.

Either way, the only reason I quoted that is because I've heard some _really_ stupid questions and assumptions in this thread... I mean a lot of the answers are right in front of you if you are willing to look.  (Most people are too stubborn though, hehe.) It's pretty stupid to argue against something if you don't even know much about what you are arguing against.


----------



## koreancuber (Jul 14, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Gollum999 said:
> 
> 
> > Genesis 2: 15-17 said:
> ...



let me get active on this thread (don't judge me on my opinions). 
this is my interpretation 

What God meant when he said "don't eat the fruit or you will surely die", Adam and Eve DID die (at an old age). God didn't mean that they would drop down dead, but rather they would die eventually. Before Eve and Adam ate the apple, there was no sin in the world, and therefore, they lived on for eternally.


----------



## irontwig (Jul 14, 2010)

The story of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a damn obvious sexual metaphor, c'mon there's even a snake...


----------



## Gollum999 (Jul 14, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Gollum999 said:
> ...



Yeah, that's basically what I was trying to say. Sounds better when you say it though.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 14, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Gollum999 said:
> ...



-Dumb question-
Why would the lack of sin in the world keep Adam and Eve from dying?


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Jul 14, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> koreancuber said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



Romans 5:12


----------



## brunson (Jul 14, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Gollum999 said:
> ...



But if that god was omniscient, then he would have known that Adam was going to eat the fruit even though he was told not to. So, it's kind of a dick move to put it there in the first place. I don't leave firearms in the reach of my children, even though I've told them not to touch them. I think if I did and one of them hurt themselves, the courts would deem me an unfit parent.


----------



## Rudinie (Jul 14, 2010)

<provocation mode>
Didn't read the whole thread but isn't saying "christian cuber" the same as saying: "i start my solves with a red cross on the back" 
</provocation mode>


----------



## koreancuber (Jul 14, 2010)

I agree with you on that. Nobody knows WHY God put that tree there (nobody has hard evidence). I think God put it there, because he didn't want us to be like robots. He gave us the choice of freewill to serve him (in this case, obey him) or not. It was a risk, yes, but God had already planned a rescue (Jesus Christ), which was needed. (the tree represented free will) WHY blame God? He made the earth, he gave us everything, including free will. (which was abused, and therefore, we were punished) God ultimately sent a rescue, Jesus Christ to die on the cross, so we, humans, could be right with God again. 

I hate this religion war! It makes me take sides, and judge people...


----------



## xbrandationx (Jul 14, 2010)

The religion war never ends. I dont understand why there is so much hate between believers and non-believers. People should just respect other peoples beliefs and leave it at that.


----------



## hagendaasmaser (Jul 14, 2010)

brunson said:


> But if that god was omniscient, then he would have known that Adam was going to eat the fruit even though he was told not to. So, it's kind of a dick move to put it there in the first place. I don't leave firearms in the reach of my children, even though I've told them not to touch them. I think if I did and one of them hurt themselves, the courts would deem me an unfit parent.



I would agree. The Christian god is an unfit creator. Creating beings already knowing that they wouldn't live up to his expectations and punishing them for the sins he knew they would commit. Even with "free will," god (since he is all-knowing) would still have known that people would sin.

EDIT: 


koreancuber said:


> I agree with you on that. Nobody knows WHY God put that tree there (nobody has hard evidence).


Nobody has any hard evidence that Adam, Eve, the Serpent, or this tree ever existed.


koreancuber said:


> I hate this religion war! It makes me take sides, and judge people...


The religion war isn't making you do anything, you might be doing these things on your own...


----------



## iasimp1997 (Jul 14, 2010)

I love how people reply to my stupid post than to the other one.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 14, 2010)

Whyusosrs? said:


> Anonymous said:
> 
> 
> > koreancuber said:
> ...


"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"
Death came to man by sin because death comes through sin.
Because.


----------



## Tyson (Jul 14, 2010)

xbrandationx said:


> The religion war never ends. I dont understand why there is so much hate between believers and non-believers. People should just respect other peoples beliefs and leave it at that.



Are all beliefs to be respected? Why should I respect someone's beliefs if his or her beliefs cause harm to others? Or if his or her beliefs restrict the freedoms of others?


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 14, 2010)

Tyson said:


> xbrandationx said:
> 
> 
> > The religion war never ends. I dont understand why there is so much hate between believers and non-believers. People should just respect other peoples beliefs and leave it at that.
> ...



I don't understand why people think that respect and discussion of beliefs are mutually exclusive :confused:

(I also agree with the posts directly above and below though)


----------



## qqwref (Jul 14, 2010)

xbrandationx said:


> The religion war never ends. I dont understand why there is so much hate between believers and non-believers. People should just respect other peoples beliefs and leave it at that.



1) Yeah, that would be nice. Then we wouldn't have to discuss religion at all. Too bad many religious people DON'T respect others' beliefs.

2) Should we respect beliefs that someone has been brainwashed into, and not try to convince them of more reasonable ones? I heard of a woman who essentially donated her children's trust fund to her church (of Scientology, if it matters) because she was tricked into believing that donating money to the church was far more important than family or future. Should we respect that belief? Or what about someone who believes Jews kill and eat Christian babies, or someone who believes it will help their country to take the life's savings from millions of the more prosperous farming families, or someone who believes it's acceptable to punish dissidents by placing them and their families in torture camps? Should we respect those beliefs, too? (Whether the belief is part of a religion or not is irrelevant. My point is that it isn't reasonable to respect *every* belief; you have to evaluate them objectively to decide if they are reasonable or not.)


----------



## xbrandationx (Jul 14, 2010)

Tyson said:


> xbrandationx said:
> 
> 
> > The religion war never ends. I dont understand why there is so much hate between believers and non-believers. People should just respect other peoples beliefs and leave it at that.
> ...



This is exactly what I mean. There is a counter-argument to everything. This is why the war will never end.


----------



## aronpm (Jul 15, 2010)

xbrandationx said:


> Tyson said:
> 
> 
> > xbrandationx said:
> ...



The 'war' will end in 2240.


----------



## sequencius (Jul 15, 2010)

I don't mind when people BRAG about their religions as Christians usually do -___- (hence why they just HAVE to include it in their signature like it matters)
but once they start "inviting" you to their church and join their ways.. I GET PISSED.

If all religions are different paths to the same place, Heaven, then why are these people trying to recruit me into their religion? That implies that they think their "path" or religion is BETTER THAN MINE! (Assuming I have a religion)

Stop handing out Bibles you retards, you're wasting paper. Just incase you haven't noticed, NO ONE READS EM. NOT EVEN THE MORMONS.


----------



## sequencius (Jul 15, 2010)

she looks hot in that picture ^


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jul 15, 2010)

What's all this with people saying Christians are 'bragging' about their religion and forcing it on people and whatnot. I'm Catholic and I don't brag about my religion or force it on anyone. Of course there are Christians that are similar to the Amazing Atheist from Youtube with all the hate speech and whatnot. But come on, just get along seriously.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 15, 2010)




----------



## Daniel Wu (Jul 15, 2010)

lol. I remember that video. Those guys are so far away from Christian values and what Christians should believe that it's shameful. :fp Anyway, there's crazy people everywhere.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 15, 2010)

The point is **** getting along.

If someone has a mindset that I consider harmful, I'm not going to respect it just because you think that a magical sky wizard wants you to act that way.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jul 15, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> The point is **** getting along.
> 
> If someone has a mindset that I consider harmful, I'm not going to respect it just because you think that a magical sky wizard wants you to act that way.


I agree. But if it's not affecting you (i.e. I'm at home worshiping the 'magical sky wizard'), then just accept it. There's enough conflict in the world without adding more. Just my two cents.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 15, 2010)

That's a given. Feel free to have whatever beliefs you want - I may find them interesting. I might also mock them - you should respect that.

Religion has caused many problems for me.


----------



## hagendaasmaser (Jul 15, 2010)

rickcube said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > The point is **** getting along.
> ...



I was unaware that you were the only one able to force these "ideals" down others' throats. Are you familiar with the Christian right? Not everybody subscribes to their ideas, so why cannot we voice our opinion in opposition. 

Sorry I forgot, the reason we can't is because it's driven by religion and we should just get along and accept it.


----------



## shelley (Jul 15, 2010)

rickcube said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > The point is **** getting along.
> ...



If religion involved only people worshipping their magical sky wizard at home and not affecting anything or anyone else there wouldn't be any problem, but that's not the way things work.


----------



## sequencius (Jul 15, 2010)

rickcube said:


> What's all this with people saying Christians are 'bragging' about their religion and forcing it on people and whatnot. I'm Catholic and I don't brag about my religion or force it on anyone. Of course there are Christians that are similar to the Amazing Atheist from Youtube with all the hate speech and whatnot. But come on, just get along seriously.



Yeah I'm Catholic too and I realize that we're a branch of Christianity but I'm talking about the specific Christians.. dude i don't even know what it's called they're just called CHRISTIANS.

They do brag. I don't ever see "Buddha Cuber" or "Islamic Cuber" for example in any signatures.. But of course the Christians have em. Cus they JUST HAVE TO let the world KNOW that they looove God. What does your religion have to do with cubing? Retards. 

Everyone knows what Christians are like. Especially the girls. For example always posting up on Facebook that they <3 God. WHO SAYS THAT? "I love God he's so amazinggg" I swear I see it allllll the time.

I've had Christian people tell me that Catholicism is the wrong type of Christianity and that we don't "pray" correctly and that their church sessions are more fulfilling. That was the last straw for me.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 15, 2010)

sequencius said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > What's all this with people saying Christians are 'bragging' about their religion and forcing it on people and whatnot. I'm Catholic and I don't brag about my religion or force it on anyone. Of course there are Christians that are similar to the Amazing Atheist from Youtube with all the hate speech and whatnot. But come on, just get along seriously.
> ...



Protestants...?
I'm struggling to make sense of that first paragraph.


----------



## ThatGuy (Jul 15, 2010)

I liek Mormons. They meke me laugh. They're morally better because they don't Truth or Dare endquote.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jul 15, 2010)

Weston said:


> I love Stefan <3



Undeniable truth.


----------



## sequencius (Jul 15, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> sequencius said:
> 
> 
> > rickcube said:
> ...



Umm.. yeah. The ones that aren't Catholic. I guess they're the Protestants. The ones I'm talking about are the ones that just refer to themselves as Christian.. not Christian-Catholic or Roman Catholic.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jul 15, 2010)

> Inb4 "God works in mysterious ways". That's a lousy cop-out for anything you can't easily explain, and I'd rather not follow a system of beliefs that makes no sense.



you should look into this religion

http://www.venganza.org/


----------



## Stefan (Jul 15, 2010)

xbrandationx said:


> People should just respect other peoples beliefs and leave it at that.



Yeah, go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and say LALALALALALAIDONTWANTTOTALKABOUTITLALALALALA... And you know what? You can actually do that. Nobody forces you to read this thread.



xbrandationx said:


> This is why the war will never end.



"War"? How about "discussion", "debate", etc? What's up with the hostile word choice?



Anonymous said:


> I don't understand why people think that respect and discussion of beliefs are mutually exclusive :confused:



My thought exactly. What does respect have to do with it? Maybe I'm just used to a scientific mindset, where people *welcome* scrutiny of their own theories, instead of calling it disrespectful.


----------



## xbrandationx (Jul 15, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Yeah, go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and say LALALALALALAIDONTWANTTOTALKABOUTITLALALALALA... And you know what? You can actually do that. Nobody forces you to read this thread.



I just wanted to give my opinion on this topic.



StefanPochmann said:


> "War"? How about "discussion", "debate", etc? What's up with the hostile word choice?



Because it is a war. Religion has led to violence/wars.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 15, 2010)

xbrandationx said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and say LALALALALALAIDONTWANTTOTALKABOUTITLALALALALA... And you know what? You can actually do that. Nobody forces you to read this thread.
> ...



3 points:

1. Yes, religion does sometimes lead to wars.
2. Talking peacefully and rationally about religion on an internet forum does not cause wars.
3. Point # 1 is exactly why religion should be discussed and debated.


----------



## edd5190 (Jul 15, 2010)

xbrandationx said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > "War"? How about "discussion", "debate", etc? What's up with the hostile word choice?
> ...



Religion has also led people to make matzah balls. Does that make this discussion a matzah ball?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 15, 2010)

YES IT DOES D:<
NOW GIMME SOME MATZAH BALL SOUP!


----------



## qqwref (Jul 15, 2010)

xbrandationx said:


> Tyson said:
> 
> 
> > xbrandationx said:
> ...



Of course the debate won't end if you just go "woop I guess we'll be fighting forever". But when one side's arguments keep getting easily shot down, well, maybe there's something to that...


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> This is for all of you who feel the need to put "christian cuber" or "atheist cuber" or "jedi cuber" or "nazi cuber" or whatever the hell else you guys have been putting into your signatures. Just stop it. Nobody cares, nobody wants to see it. Stop trying to divide people by what god you do or don't worship and just accept that we all enjoy a central hobby. Take your religious ramblings somewhere else.



I say who cares what you think. where I live is a free country and I shouldn''t be told not to put anything doing with God in my signature.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> where I live is a free country




omg so can I go get high there?


----------



## LogicalTechnology (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > This is for all of you who feel the need to put "christian cuber" or "atheist cuber" or "jedi cuber" or "nazi cuber" or whatever the hell else you guys have been putting into your signatures. Just stop it. Nobody cares, nobody wants to see it. Stop trying to divide people by what god you do or don't worship and just accept that we all enjoy a central hobby. Take your religious ramblings somewhere else.
> ...



I say who cares what you think. where I live is a free country and I shouldn"t be told what your religion is or have it forced on me.

Life's tough, get a helmet.


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

LogicalTechnology said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > Ethan Rosen said:
> ...



I'm not forcing anything on you, I'm just saying I should have a right to say *CHRISTIAN CUBER* on my signature.


----------



## LogicalTechnology (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> LogicalTechnology said:
> 
> 
> > rubiksczar said:
> ...



Of course you have the right.
Just like I have the right to stand in the middle of Times Square and yell about how Hitler was right.

I have the right to say it, but that doesn't mean it should be said.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> where I live is a free country and I shouldn''t be told not to put anything doing with God in my signature.



lmfao

Did You Know?
The United States's Constitution guarantees its people many freedoms, such as Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and so on. However, the people are only free in the sense that the government can't make laws restricting speech, religion, and so on - and even that isn't always true, because it is still illegal in some cases to publish or say certain words which are seen as possibly causing danger to others, and the government can restrict these freedoms in situations such as war. Still, even though the government will generally not prosecute you for saying whatever you want, other people are often still allowed to! In practice, United States citizens do not have significantly more freedom of speech or press than citizens of other developed countries do.


----------



## Nestor (Jul 16, 2010)

So I can proudly put my beliefs in my sig? I'm an atheist just like ALL of you guys are...

Except that I believe in one God less than those of you that are Christians, or Muslims, or Jewish, Or budhists, or.... ^^


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > This is for all of you who feel the need to put "christian cuber" or "atheist cuber" or "jedi cuber" or "nazi cuber" or whatever the hell else you guys have been putting into your signatures. Just stop it. Nobody cares, nobody wants to see it. Stop trying to divide people by what god you do or don't worship and just accept that we all enjoy a central hobby. Take your religious ramblings somewhere else.
> ...



George does. "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."



Spoiler



>My face at the last part of the quote


----------



## sequencius (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> LogicalTechnology said:
> 
> 
> > rubiksczar said:
> ...



Why do you put it in your sig? 
No one cares. Christians always have to tell the world that they're Christian.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

UnAbusador said:


> So I can proudly put my beliefs in my sig? I'm an atheist just like ALL of you guys are...
> 
> Except that I believe in one God less than those of you that are Christians, or Muslims, or Jewish, Or *budhists*, or.... ^^


Buddhists. If you're going to capitalise them, capitalise them all.
And, Buddhists generally don't believe in a god in the Judeo-Christian sense.
The Buddha was not a god...


----------



## Stefan (Jul 16, 2010)

UnAbusador said:


> So I can proudly put my beliefs in my sig? I'm *an atheist just like ALL of you guys are*...
> 
> Except that I believe in one God less than those of you that are Christians, or Muslims, or Jewish, Or budhists, or.... ^^



Someone needs to learn what atheist means...


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 16, 2010)

This thread is silly.
It's a damn signature.
You can turn signatures off.
A lot of anti-theists (often linked with atheism and agnosticism, whether you like it or not) are under the impression that religion forces upon people to berate others for their beliefs, but what you're doing here is barely different, and it's not as if they're even enforcing it, or trying to actually convert you.

Seldom have I seen posts from theists that are all "<3 JESUS, AND YOU SHOULD TOO!!!" that are unprovoked by some "atheist."

Personally, because of the restriction in signature size (which can be gotten around, with a trick or two ) I don't care too much what people put in their signatures. If I see a signature stating something like "Christian Cuber," I see it as no different than seeing the fishy bumper sticker on the back of someones' car, or a woman wearing a cross necklace.

Pertaining to those situations, I've never really heard of people (apart from an instance or two) where people were told that their cross or fishy was annoying them, and that it should be changed or removed.

So why is it that you all feel the need to point out and remonstrate them for such simple text displayed across your screens?


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 16, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> This thread is silly.
> It's a damn signature.
> You can turn signatures off.
> A lot of anti-theists (often linked with atheism and agnosticism, whether you like it or not) are under the impression that religion forces upon people to berate others for their beliefs, but what you're doing here is barely different, and it's not as if they're even enforcing it, or trying to actually convert you.
> ...



Personally, I dislike the signatures because I find them presumptuous. The assumption when you put them there is that people care. Most don't.

It's not as though I'm going to avoid anyone who has the Christian Cuber sig though. I don't see it as that big a deal. I see the stigma towards religion threads as a big deal though.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 16, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is silly.
> ...


I dislike broccoli.
Broccoli is too presumptuous.

^^was meant in humor, not in retort.


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

Jesus is amazing and beautifully Glorious in all that He does, and He loves everyone no matter how much you hate or love Him. =D


----------



## Feryll (Jul 16, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> This thread is silly.
> It's a damn signature.
> You can turn signatures off.
> A lot of anti-theists (often linked with atheism and agnosticism, whether you like it or not) are under the impression that religion forces upon people to berate others for their beliefs, but what you're doing here is barely different, and it's not as if they're even enforcing it, or trying to actually convert you.
> ...


That's actually what I was thinking. I see it more as theists argue and make fights in real life, while anti-theists argue and make fights on the internet (Not specifically using this thread as an example, though).


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> Jesus is amazing and beautifully Glorious in all that He does, and He loves everyone no matter how much you hate or love Him. =D


Damn Christians always trying to disprove my points while trying to help them. D:< 
But in all seriousness, that would get damn annoying fast if people said with high frequency, at least for me.



Feryll said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > ~BLAH BLAH BLAH SILLY THREAD~
> ...


Oh, just as a note, I think I read a total of 5 posts of this thread, so don't expect me to know what you were saying earlier in the thread. 
And yes, people just like fighting on the internetz.

Not that I disapprove, of course, when it's about something less serious. Then again, part of me finds hardcore theism quite silly, so my emotions are slightly tied as whether to force the issue or not.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 16, 2010)

lol ban sigs


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 16, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> lol ban sigs


That would have been far less confusing with a comma. I was sitting there thinking "who has a 'banned cuber' sig??"


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 16, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus is amazing and beautifully Glorious in all that He does, and He loves everyone no matter how much you hate or love Him. =D
> ...



That was damn annoying when he said it once >_>


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 16, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > rubiksczar said:
> ...


Well yeah, but I felt like not being a douche about it, giving a gentle nudge to "stfu."


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > rubiksczar said:
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 16, 2010)

I think rubik'sczar was being sarcastic/ironic guys...

Edit:At least I hope so.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 16, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> I think rubik'sczar was being sarcastic/ironic guys...
> 
> Edit:At least I hope so.



I hope not. I like debates and stuffs.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Jul 16, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> OMG THE MUFFINS ARE STILL HERE


----------



## brunson (Jul 16, 2010)

Alright, everyone take a deep breath. Keep it civil. I deleted my own post and a quote of it, I think it was a little inflammatory and led to a decline in decorum. I apologize.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

brunson said:


> Alright, everyone take a deep breath. Keep it civil. I deleted my own post and a quote of it, I think it was a little inflammatory and led to a decline in decorum. I apologize.



I think you had a good point though.
"Christian Cuber" to me brings a connotation of "cuber who follows things like Leviticus 24:16."
That feels, to me, like a violation of rule 6. That doesn't make me feel very welcome.

Whether someone has a *right* to put something in their signature is irrelevant. Yeah, yeah, "free country" and all that, but if pjk so wished, he could place a ban on any religious sigs. It's his site.

Again, rights are irrelevant.


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 16, 2010)

*sigh* whatever. 

I just feel like we were all still one big group discussing speedcubing until someone says "hey, I don't like that dude who says he's a Christian. He should take that off his sig or be banned." and now we've all exploded in a volley agreement, disagreement and contradiction.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

TheCubeMaster5000 said:


> *sigh* whatever.
> 
> I just feel like we were all still one big group discussing speedcubing until someone says "hey, I don't like that dude who says he's a Christian. He should take that off his sig or be banned." and now we've all *exploded* in a volley agreement, disagreement and contradiction.


I disagree completely.
I'm not sure why some people are saying that the sky is falling and everyone's flaming each other...
I have my theories why, but I'm not sure.

Really. No one has exploded.


----------



## gogozerg (Jul 16, 2010)

Johan444 said:


> That kind of signatures makes it easier to know whos opinion to ignore. Do not remove them.



+1


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 16, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> TheCubeMaster5000 said:
> 
> 
> > *sigh* whatever.
> ...



I meant "exploded" as in many people have added their opinion on the matter.
I should have said something completely different, really.

True, this discussion is not a violent one by any means. I just feel that this may lead to more bitterness and division later on in the future...

edit: If you read the New Testament you would find a few _revisions_ to those Leviticus rules... That's why Jews and Christians are not the same.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 16, 2010)

TheCubeMaster5000 said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > TheCubeMaster5000 said:
> ...



I don't think that anyone's going to leave this conversation bitterly, personally. It's healthy to talk about these things.


----------



## edd5190 (Jul 16, 2010)

TheCubeMaster5000 said:


> edit: If you read the New Testament you would find a few _revisions_ to those Leviticus rules... That's why Jews and Christians are not the same.



No, Jews and Christians are not the same because Jews do not believe that Christ was the Messiah, and because they believe in a single God instead of the Trinity that Christians believe in.

Christians actually do have to follow the same Leviticus rules that Jews do.


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 16, 2010)

I didn't mean this thread specifically when I meant bitterness in conversation.

But if a lot of people take up an attitude of ignoring you if they don't like your religion, on any topic, then I can see bitterness.

edd5190: True, most things in the Old Testament still apply. But everything about animal sacrifices for atonement of sins are no more because Jesus came and paid the price for the sins of the world. John 3:16 
So, technically you are right. I sit corrected.


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 16, 2010)

TheCubeMaster5000 said:


> I didn't mean this thread specifically when I meant bitterness in conversation.
> 
> But if a lot of people take up an attitude of ignoring you if they don't like your religion, on any topic, then I can see bitterness.
> 
> ...



If God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, why didn't he get it right the first time?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

For reference- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> TheCubeMaster5000 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't mean this thread specifically when I meant bitterness in conversation.
> ...


He did (Genesis chapter 1) but because God gave man a free choice, man was free to sin, but with sin comes consequences (chapter 2 and 3)
Satan stole our birth right as God's child until Jesus died on the cross for our sins and taking back our birth right as God's children, except it's our choice whether or not to receive Him as our Father.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > TheCubeMaster5000 said:
> ...



1.What happened to the souls of the people who happened to die before Jesus died on the cross? 
2. How is it our choice to believe or not believe something?


----------



## ChrisBird (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > TheCubeMaster5000 said:
> ...



You actually believe this stuff?


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> ChrisBird said:
> 
> 
> > TheCubeMaster5000 said:
> ...



But with God being omniscient "he" knew that Satan would trick Eve, and allowed us to sin.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 16, 2010)

Can we refer to God as it from now on without anyone getting offended?


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisBird said:
> ...



1. They went to Hell, but after Jesus died He spent 3 days in Hell giving the people that didn't get a chance to receive Him a chance to receive Him.

2. Everyone has a choice it's part of human nature. God made us with the ability to choose because He didn't want talking robots waiting on His hands and feet, He wanted them to love Him with their own ability.

EDIT:sorry that I didn't receive your message, Anonymous.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> Anonymous said:
> 
> 
> > rubiksczar said:
> ...



References?


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisBird said:
> ...



Yes, and He planned out the escape plan (Jesus) to die on the cross for our sins and Jesus will come back to complete what He started and restore what was lost.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

That still means that God deliberately created evil.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 16, 2010)

Which message?

Also (I'm repeating myself, but I want to be clearer), I have a problem with the idea that we can choose whether or not we believe in God.

Belief in any concept is ultimately out of our control. I don't care how faithful you are, I don't care how hard you try, you cannot convince yourself, nor can you choose to have faith in the idea, that 1 + 1 = 3. You just can't.

I'm not implying that you don't believe in God, nor am I implying that I think that I should be spared of Hell because it's not my fault that I'm an atheist. I'm saying that this makes the very idea of Hell inherently flawed, and that God cannot exist the way It's portrayed in the Bible if It's knowingly operating Hell the way Christians claim.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> EnterPseudonym said:
> 
> 
> > rubiksczar said:
> ...


And you're saying that "He" planned to create another form of himself to sacrifice "himself" to "himself" which was "his" plan, and "he" succeeded, but "he's" coming back to finish what has been completed and restore what was lost(Eden)? And then this starts back around at the point "If "he's" omniscient he knew this would happen so why didn't he do it right the first time."


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> Which message?
> 
> Also (I'm repeating myself, but I want to be clearer), I have a problem with the idea that we can choose whether or not we believe in God.
> 
> ...


I'm just saying that man has a free choice. whether to believe in God or not is all up to you.


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > EnterPseudonym said:
> ...


Because He wanted man to have a free choice.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 16, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> Belief in any concept is ultimately out of our control. I don't care how faithful you are, I don't care how hard you try, you cannot convince yourself, nor can you choose to have faith in the idea, that 1 + 1 = 3. You just can't.


Inb4 L. Ron Hubbard.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> Anonymous said:
> 
> 
> > Which message?
> ...



But you didn't really answer my argument, which is that it's _not_ up to us whether or not to believe in God.


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > EnterPseudonym said:
> ...


Jesus wasn't created (John chapter 1)


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > Anonymous said:
> ...


Let me make it clear to you: You have a free choice whether or not to believe what I'm saying to you, you have a free choice whether or not to believe the Bible, and you have a free choice whether or not to believe in God.
and if that's not what you're asking than I'll tell you that He had a free choice whether or not to make us, to make us in Our (refereing to the trinity) image, or to make us with a free choice.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> EnterPseudonym said:
> 
> 
> > rubiksczar said:
> ...


conception != creating life. Thats not the way i see it.

anyway if God removes sin "he" is removing the freedom he created.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > EnterPseudonym said:
> ...



So if I only have two morally good options, I don't have free choice? I have to have the option to do something evil for my choice to be considered free?


----------



## Weston (Jul 16, 2010)

If God was omnipotent, then he would be able to remove sin and keep freedom.

Oh btw, you dont have to press "quote" for
Every
Single 
Post


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > EnterPseudonym said:
> ...


Not exactly, God's not litterally going to uncreate freedom. When Jesus died He didn't kill sin, we still have a free choice, in Revelations Jesus comes back to destroy the Devil who is sin when He does that we will either go to eternal damnation in fire or live with Christ in the New Jeruselem.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

Weston said:


> If God was omnipotent, then he would be able to remove sin and keep freedom.
> 
> Oh btw, you dont have to press reply for
> Every
> ...



We'll assume God is omnipotent.
Can he make a square triangle?

There are things even an omnipotent being can't do.
Logically impossible things. 

That being said, I agree with you, free will doesn't necessitate evil.


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

Weston said:


> If God was omnipotent, then he would be able to remove sin and keep freedom.
> 
> Oh btw, you dont have to press "quote" for
> Every
> ...


sorry that is getting a little annoying. and Yes that is what He will do, and is doing.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > If God was omnipotent, then he would be able to remove sin and keep freedom.
> ...



Why doesn't he do that now? Why is he making us suffer unnecessarily?


----------



## Weston (Jul 16, 2010)

Since when do laws lf logic apply to omnipotent beings? 
Im just playing around with how little the Christian God makes sense (to me).


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 16, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Can he make a square triangle?


Oh you, and your Euclidean geometry.


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 16, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > If God was omnipotent, then he would be able to remove sin and keep freedom.
> ...



actually, He made EVERYTHING! it would probably be easy for Him to make a square triangle, I'll call it squiangle.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 16, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Weston said:
> ...



Really? And how can a square triangle exist? How can a four sided figure have three sides?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox


----------



## Weston (Jul 16, 2010)

The same way water turns into wine.




It doesn't


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 16, 2010)

Weston said:


> If God was omnipotent, then he would be able to remove sin and keep freedom.
> 
> Oh btw, you dont have to press "quote" for
> Every
> ...



u mad?

On topic: the only way i can see that god can remove sin and keep freedom, is to remove the limitations on what he calls sin. Also he created sin not the Devil, the Devil only tempts people. I.e if i want to go commit adultery this is a sin according to him. And since he removed sin i cannot do this, thus removing my freedoms.


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 16, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > If God was omnipotent, then he would be able to remove sin and keep freedom.
> ...



IMO that's a problem with the concept of omnipotency, not Weston's argument. In fact, I think that that was his point.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 17, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Weston said:
> ...



I understand his point, and I agree- I was just being a pain in the ass and pointing out a defense to that argument.


----------



## Rpotts (Jul 17, 2010)

Why would anyone have a problem with what's in anyones sig? Does it matter if they adhere to a certain religion? Is it enough to think that sigs "divide the community" as if those who put "atheist cuber" in their sig are somehow aligning themselves with other atheist cubers so they can go to battle with the "christian cubers?"

I think it's kinda silly. 

ATHEIST CUBER


----------



## Dene (Jul 17, 2010)

I thought I already owned this thread. How is it still going?


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 17, 2010)

Dene said:


> I thought I already owned this thread. How is it still going?



Well, we're not *really* talking about signatures anymore, lol...


----------



## Rpotts (Jul 17, 2010)

Weston said:


> Funnily enough, my sig is already a little racist. More of an inside joke though.



LOL that was the highlight of the comp for sure.

And yes it's more than a little racist, but it was completely true... 
Anthony's face....... omg... I've never lol'd so hard


----------



## Weston (Jul 17, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > Funnily enough, my sig is already a little racist. More of an inside joke though.
> ...



YES! That was pure hilarity. Especially because William had no idea why it was so funny until after. I still laugh when I think of it


----------



## rubiksczar (Jul 17, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > If God was omnipotent, then he would be able to remove sin and keep freedom.
> ...



God DID make the Devil, The Devil used to be an angel of light but became too prideful and was trying to dethrone God and put himself up as god, so God simply damned him. and that's how he became the Devil.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 17, 2010)

rubiksczar said:


> EnterPseudonym said:
> 
> 
> > Weston said:
> ...



It seems you mis interpreted. I meant that God Created sin. The Devil just tempts people to sin.


----------



## Rpotts (Jul 17, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> rubiksczar said:
> 
> 
> > EnterPseudonym said:
> ...



I don't think he misinterpreted you.

Why do people still follow these archaic stories made up to explain away otherwise inexplicable phenomena?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 17, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> EnterPseudonym said:
> 
> 
> > rubiksczar said:
> ...


Tell a kid something and drill it into them when they're young enough and they'll believe anything.
That's part of it.


----------



## QCcuber4 (Jul 17, 2010)

So reading all this, christians saying they dont mind seeing other people show their faith and all in their sigs, does it mean i can make myself at home at point out ~Antireligionist~ ? cuz if thats what your saying i might as well start now right?

Edit: The mesage sounds a little *****ie sorry about that, but seriously what would you guys say?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 17, 2010)

QCcuber4 said:


> So reading all this, christians saying they dont mind seeing other people show their faith and all in their sigs, does it mean i can make myself at home at point out ~Antireligionist~ ? cuz if thats what your saying i might as well start now right?
> 
> Edit: The mesage sounds a little *****ie sorry about that, but seriously what would you guys say?



That seems to be what's been decided, yes, that's fine.


----------



## ThatGuy (Jul 17, 2010)

If you can walk on water you're perfect.


----------



## aronpm (Jul 17, 2010)

ThatGuy said:


> If you can walk on water you're perfect.


----------



## QCcuber4 (Jul 17, 2010)

aronpm said:


> ThatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > If you can walk on water you're perfect.



lmao


----------



## JBCM627 (Jul 17, 2010)




----------



## HowSuneIsNow (Jul 17, 2010)

I changed my sig


----------



## Faz (Jul 17, 2010)

23:05	EthanRosen lol that thread i made when i was high got 37 pages
23:05	EthanRosen lolololol


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 17, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> 23:05	EthanRosen lol that thread i made when i was high got 37 pages
> 23:05	EthanRosen lolololol



how am i not surprised?


----------



## edd5190 (Jul 17, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> fazrulz said:
> 
> 
> > 23:05	EthanRosen lol that thread i made when i was high got 37 pages
> ...



Because you already knew that the thread had 37 pages when you read that?


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 17, 2010)

Shocker.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 17, 2010)

edd5190 said:


> EnterPseudonym said:
> 
> 
> > fazrulz said:
> ...


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 17, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> edd5190 said:
> 
> 
> > EnterPseudonym said:
> ...



I think he was being sarcastic.


----------

