NationStates Jolt Archive

Helspotistan, you've got it sussed.

Has Nomanslanda gone? I've got to go out soon...
I must admit I respected his 'have a moral standpoint; see it through to the bitter end' attitude.

im back :D (needed to go to sleep)

what shall we argue about today?:p

(oh and cheers... but pretty much anyone of strong convictions - and overinflated egos - will keep strong to his morals, or belief of their futility/inadequacy)

EDIT: oh... i've only just noticed none of you lot were on-line anymore :(

:p

Is this a message in a Bottle? Who's slave account are you anway?

why should I need to be someone else's puppet to state my point of view on Pascal's bet? and whose puppet are YOU?

:p

Is this a message in a Bottle? Who's slave account are you anway?

While it may indeed be a puppet of some sort nothing he has stated is "out there" enough to really care one way or another

Pascal's wager is a pile and we all know it

And there were barbarian tribes and cultures in Europe and outside of it during entire period attacking it from within and outside... If anything, the Christian churches and monasteries should be credited with preserving and saving for posterities sake the remnants of the Roman and Greek world artifacts that we have today (from their respective regions)...

Plenty of other Greek and Roman artifacts were destroyed because they were 'pagan' and/or happened to depict someone who had not been a Christian. This included many irreplaceable statues and works of art stored in temples. Pure vandalism, and a low and cowardly example of cultural imperialism carried out by dangerous idiots with a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other. Not that the Bible had been compiled then, but I happen to like the phrase.

While I'm in the mood for some ranting: Photomere, your argument is logically flawed. Belonging to a religion just in case it happens to be right? The odds against you having picked the right religion are pretty high.

why should I need to be someone else's puppet to state my point of view on Pascal's bet? and whose puppet are YOU?


Your name should be ... " Satanslavesyou " ... because then it would be accuate

Nietzsche did say that "God is Dead" but he didn't mean it in the sense that there is no God, he was making an objective observation at the deteriorating morals of Mankind and his fellow countrymen, I myself am not a Christian, but neither is the United States of America. To call us a Christian nation is unconstitutional. In the first ammendment it specifically states that congress cannot appoint one national religion. So to say that the United States is a completely christian society and then refute that point by saying it isn't, you yourself are an oaf.

Where would a sense of morality and law come from? If history has shown us anything, christians are, at the best, intollerant bigots who want to slaughter the "demon worshiping pagans", and force their religion down ones' throat and up their ass. Not to mention they're all suffering from mass schizophrenia/hystaria. And of course, if you're a catholic priest...well, you've got a thing for little boys, don'tcha?

(Note: I know all christians aren't intollerant bigots. This is just a rebuttle to the "In a completely atheist culture..." thread, because the poster seems to have assumed atheists are moral-less and such, so I'm countering by saying that christians are bloodthirsty barbarians and mentally insane. I would like to thank Nietzsche for the sole fact that He > Jesus.)

That doesn't quite make sense.
If not all Christians are as you described in the first paragraph, then there must be some that are not.
You clearly intended to make the description in the first paragraph as derogatory as possible, so it is not possible for the group that do not conform to this description to be worse.
However, the description in the first paragraph is prefixed with "at best", so it is not possible for the group to be better.

So if they can't be as described in the first paragraph, worse than that, or better than that, such a group cannot exist.
But it does.

Reducio ad absurdio.

Nietzsche did say that "God is Dead" but he didn't mean it in the sense that there is no God, he was making an objective observation at the deteriorating morals of Mankind and his fellow countrymen, I myself am not a Christian, but neither is the United States of America. To call us a Christian nation is unconstitutional. In the first ammendment it specifically states that congress cannot appoint one national religion. So to say that the United States is a completely christian society and then refute that point by saying it isn't, you yourself are an oaf.

no, calling your country christian is stating a fact... it does not refer to a state religion but rather at the religious componence of your society...

if i called it a christian state it still wouldn't matter, because your constitution is of no consequence to me

That doesn't quite make sense.
If not all Christians are as you described in the first paragraph, then there must be some that are not.
You clearly intended to make the description in the first paragraph as derogatory as possible, so it is not possible for the group that do not conform to this description to be worse.
However, the description in the first paragraph is prefixed with "at best", so it is not possible for the group to be better.

So if they can't be as described in the first paragraph, worse than that, or better than that, such a group cannot exist.
But it does.

Reducio ad absurdio.

uhm... you are taking satire far too seriously :)

midieval europe was completely christian

Nietzsche did say that "God is Dead" but he didn't mean it in the sense that there is no God, he was making an objective observation at the deteriorating morals of Mankind and his fellow countrymen, I myself am not a Christian, but neither is the United States of America. To call us a Christian nation is unconstitutional. In the first ammendment it specifically states that congress cannot appoint one national religion. So to say that the United States is a completely christian society and then refute that point by saying it isn't, you yourself are an oaf.

I would have to differ, I do agree that the congress can not appoint one national religion. But it doesn't mean that the people of the USA are forbidden to practice christianity. And just like any other group, the members will attempt to gain new members. And if every person in the US would join the group of their own freewill then it would not be unconstitutional.

midieval europe was completely christian

And that was indeed a great time to live!

*Catches Black Plague*

DAMN cats! Oh well, at least I have rat here.

midieval europe was completely christian

Exactly, and you had the Crusades, the Inquisition, the establishment of religion-supported monarchies, and a suppression of scientific advancement to go along with that.

And I'm not just talking about the regular ol' let's go kill the Muslims Crusades. Have you heard of the Aberjensian Crusade? It was sanctioned by the Catholic Church and basically gave land in southern France that was held by a sect of Christianity known as the Cathars away to whichever butchering French noble could get his hands on it first.

THAT is the inherent morality of a Christian state.